What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4768637 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4768637?

Cleaning: $222.73 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $18.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Furniture: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $235.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768637?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10478282-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4768637 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4768637?

Cleaning: $222.73 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $18.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Furniture: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $235.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768637?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10478282-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 909 Clive Street, Akina, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4768637 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768637. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$235.71	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$18.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning: Brm 2	$222.73	Carpet Cleaning: Brm 2
Carpet Cleaning: Urine treatment Brm 3 Dining Lounge	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning: Urine treatment Brm 3 Dining Lounge
Carpet replacement Brm 3	$450.00	Carpet replacement Brm 3
Reinstate furniture	$75.00	Reinstate furniture
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tequila Keefe-Lenden and Paradise Parr Hutton must pay [The landlord/s] $588.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $720.83 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Proceedings
The landlord applied on 9 January 2024 for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied on 30 January 2024 for refund of the bond.
A hearing was held on 4 April 2024 which only the tenants attended. For the reasons set out in that Order, the bond was released to the tenants except for the amount of $720.83, which was the amount claimed by the landlord in her initial application.
The landlord’s claims for determination are now: Rent arrears$235.71 Carpet Cleaning: Brm 2$222.73 Carpet Cleaning: Urine treatment brm 3 Lounge Dining$287.50 Carpet replacement Brm 3 Replace pedestal fan Replace baseboard Replace keys $932.50 $30.00 $17.95 $18.00 Rearrange furniture$125.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44

How much is owed for rent?

There is no dispute that there is unpaid rent of $235.71. The tenants say that the obligation for outstanding rent was created by the landlord refunding some rent to only one of the tenants.
It remains unclear to me why that happened but as this was a joint and several tenancy, the tenants are equally entitled to any rent refunded and equally liable for any rent outstanding.
As between the tenants and the landlord there is rent outstanding which should be paid. Keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s evidence is that some keys provided to the tenants were not returned. She seeks compensation for the cost of having new keys cut.
The tenant has provided photographic evidence showing the keys that were returned at the end of the tenancy. Included in that evidence is a note left for the landlord saying that 4 keys remained in the possession of one of the tenants. I find it proved that 4 keys provided to the tenants were not returned at the end of the tenancy. Although 2 were later recovered, 2 were not and the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the cost of having new keys cut.
Although the landlord had indicated that she would cover that cost herseld, as other issues were not settled, I do not find that she is prevented from bringing that claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Baseboards
The property has what appear to be fibrolite type base boards between the bottom of the exterior cladding and the ground.
Photographs provided by the landlord show the base boards with a significant hole in a corner by the main entry. The photographs also show several other areas where the base boards are damaged, that damage having been there before the tenancy started. The landlord says that when having the base boards replaced, an extra sheet of baseboard material was required to repair that one hole that wasn't there at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants deny any knowledge of that hole in the base boards. They suggest it may have been there at the start of the tenancy but couldn’t be seen in the photographs because it was covered by a geranium plant growing in front of it. That theory does not appear to be supported by photographs taken at the start of the tenancy which appear to show the baseboard in that spot intact.
It is clear that there was some pre-existing damage to the base boards. It is not established by the evidence that the cost of replacing the base boards was increased by reason of that particular hole or whether it was able to be repaired using material that would need to have been bought anyway to repair pre- existing damage.
Without that proof of loss, the compensation claim must be declined. Carpets
The landlord says that during the tenancy the carpets were damaged by cat urine caused by a cat that the tenants had living at the premises with the landlord’s consent.
I note that whether or not a landlord agrees to tenants having a pet, the tenants and nevertheless responsible for any damage that pet causes.
The landlord’s evidence is that after discovering the carpet stained and smelling from cat urine, she took the most cost effective approach she could to repairing the damage. That involved cleaning the carpet in bedroom 2 and having an odour treatment applied to the carpets in bedroom 3, the lounge and dining room. As the odour treatment had proved insufficient in bedroom 3, the carpet in bedroom 3 will need to be replaced.
The landlord notes that in an endeavour to minimise the cost, rather than having the odour treatment applied throughout the property, as was recommended to her, the odour treatment was confined to the 3 rooms noted.
The tenants rightly noted that the invoice for cleaning bedroom 2 was based on the charge for cleaning an area of 24m 2 , an area much larger than the size of that bedroom. The landlord queried the invoice and has now provided a corrected invoice with a reduced charge for cleaning only that bedroom, an area of 9m 2 .
The tenants also say that they correctly applied a “Bissell” spot clean to the affected areas of the carpet, so there was no need for further cleaning of the carpets.
The evidence provided by the landlord includes a report from Chemdry noting that using a blacklight, multiple urine spots were found in through the premises. The report notes that replacement of the carpet throughout had been recommended to the landlord and that “To effectively treat all areas of contamination will likely cost between $700-$850.00 and may take a couple of treatments.” Treatment of the carpet in all rooms was suggested.
Given that evidence I find it proved on balance that: a.During the tenancy the carpets were damaged by cat urine b.The damage was more than fair and tear; c.The landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the costs by having bedroom 2 cleaned and bedroom 3, the lounge and dining room odour treated; d.As a result of the odour treatment of bedroom 3 not being sufficient to remove the odour, it is reasonable to replace the carpet in bedroom 3, rather than continuing with what might be multiple odour treatments that might not prove effective.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and quotes provided.
The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I have therefore taken into account depreciation in relation to the carpet replacement. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan as provided by IRD depreciation tables. Pedestal fan
The premises were provided with furnishings. The landlord says that one of the chattels provided was a pedestal fan which was not there at the final inspection.
The landlord asked for it to be returned by the tenants and it was returned in a damaged state so needs to be replaced.
The tenants note that the pedestal fan is not shown as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. They say that they took the fan with them when they moved out believing it was theirs. They say they checked with their mother who recalled giving it to them. They say they nevertheless gave the fan to the landlord at her insistence.
The fan still operates but photographs clearly show damage to one of its legs.
This is the landlords claim and the onus of proof is on her. In the absence of the fan’s inclusion in the chattels list and having regard to the other evidence heard, I do not find it proved by the landlord that the pedestal fan was a chattel included in the tenancy agreement. That compensation claim is declined. Reinstatement of furniture
The tenants acknowledge that during the tenancy they moved furniture around inside the premises. They say they were entitled to.
The landlord says that she was herself unable to return the furniture to its position at the start of the tenancy and had to hire furniture movers to do that for her at a cost of $125.00, which the invoice shows was for half an hour's work.
The tenants are correct that as they had rented a finished home, they were entitled to arrange the furniture as best suited them. Nevertheless, they ought to have returned the premises to how they were when the tenancy began.
Although the provisions of section 42B do not directly apply as they relate to minor changes to the premises themselves, the principle is the same that: “If a minor change is made in accordance with a request under section 42A, the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.”
I accordingly find that the landlord should be compensated for the reasonable cost of having the items of furniture moved during the tenancy, put back to their original position. In terms of mitigation, I am satisfied that even if the landlord has asked the tenants to do it, they would have refused, believing it was not their obligation.
I do consider that the tenants being charged $125.00 for half an hour's work is excessive in relation to the extent of their breach and a reduced amount is awarded.
As the landlord has been substantially successful with her claim, I reimburse the filing fee.
Each party has applied for suppression of their identifying details. Section 95A RTA provides that: “The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.”
As the landlord has been substantially successful, she is entitled to a suppression order. The grounds for suppression of the tenants’ details are not made out.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768637. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$235.71	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$18.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning: Brm 2	$222.73	Carpet Cleaning: Brm 2
Carpet Cleaning: Urine treatment Brm 3 Dining Lounge	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning: Urine treatment Brm 3 Dining Lounge
Carpet replacement Brm 3	$450.00	Carpet replacement Brm 3
Reinstate furniture	$75.00	Reinstate furniture
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tequila Keefe-Lenden and Paradise Parr Hutton must pay [The landlord/s] $588.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $720.83 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Proceedings
The landlord applied on 9 January 2024 for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied on 30 January 2024 for refund of the bond.
A hearing was held on 4 April 2024 which only the tenants attended. For the reasons set out in that Order, the bond was released to the tenants except for the amount of $720.83, which was the amount claimed by the landlord in her initial application.
The landlord’s claims for determination are now: Rent arrears$235.71 Carpet Cleaning: Brm 2$222.73 Carpet Cleaning: Urine treatment brm 3 Lounge Dining$287.50 Carpet replacement Brm 3 Replace pedestal fan Replace baseboard Replace keys $932.50 $30.00 $17.95 $18.00 Rearrange furniture$125.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44

How much is owed for rent?

There is no dispute that there is unpaid rent of $235.71. The tenants say that the obligation for outstanding rent was created by the landlord refunding some rent to only one of the tenants.
It remains unclear to me why that happened but as this was a joint and several tenancy, the tenants are equally entitled to any rent refunded and equally liable for any rent outstanding.
As between the tenants and the landlord there is rent outstanding which should be paid. Keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s evidence is that some keys provided to the tenants were not returned. She seeks compensation for the cost of having new keys cut.
The tenant has provided photographic evidence showing the keys that were returned at the end of the tenancy. Included in that evidence is a note left for the landlord saying that 4 keys remained in the possession of one of the tenants. I find it proved that 4 keys provided to the tenants were not returned at the end of the tenancy. Although 2 were later recovered, 2 were not and the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the cost of having new keys cut.
Although the landlord had indicated that she would cover that cost herseld, as other issues were not settled, I do not find that she is prevented from bringing that claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Baseboards
The property has what appear to be fibrolite type base boards between the bottom of the exterior cladding and the ground.
Photographs provided by the landlord show the base boards with a significant hole in a corner by the main entry. The photographs also show several other areas where the base boards are damaged, that damage having been there before the tenancy started. The landlord says that when having the base boards replaced, an extra sheet of baseboard material was required to repair that one hole that wasn't there at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants deny any knowledge of that hole in the base boards. They suggest it may have been there at the start of the tenancy but couldn’t be seen in the photographs because it was covered by a geranium plant growing in front of it. That theory does not appear to be supported by photographs taken at the start of the tenancy which appear to show the baseboard in that spot intact.
It is clear that there was some pre-existing damage to the base boards. It is not established by the evidence that the cost of replacing the base boards was increased by reason of that particular hole or whether it was able to be repaired using material that would need to have been bought anyway to repair pre- existing damage.
Without that proof of loss, the compensation claim must be declined. Carpets
The landlord says that during the tenancy the carpets were damaged by cat urine caused by a cat that the tenants had living at the premises with the landlord’s consent.
I note that whether or not a landlord agrees to tenants having a pet, the tenants and nevertheless responsible for any damage that pet causes.
The landlord’s evidence is that after discovering the carpet stained and smelling from cat urine, she took the most cost effective approach she could to repairing the damage. That involved cleaning the carpet in bedroom 2 and having an odour treatment applied to the carpets in bedroom 3, the lounge and dining room. As the odour treatment had proved insufficient in bedroom 3, the carpet in bedroom 3 will need to be replaced.
The landlord notes that in an endeavour to minimise the cost, rather than having the odour treatment applied throughout the property, as was recommended to her, the odour treatment was confined to the 3 rooms noted.
The tenants rightly noted that the invoice for cleaning bedroom 2 was based on the charge for cleaning an area of 24m 2 , an area much larger than the size of that bedroom. The landlord queried the invoice and has now provided a corrected invoice with a reduced charge for cleaning only that bedroom, an area of 9m 2 .
The tenants also say that they correctly applied a “Bissell” spot clean to the affected areas of the carpet, so there was no need for further cleaning of the carpets.
The evidence provided by the landlord includes a report from Chemdry noting that using a blacklight, multiple urine spots were found in through the premises. The report notes that replacement of the carpet throughout had been recommended to the landlord and that “To effectively treat all areas of contamination will likely cost between $700-$850.00 and may take a couple of treatments.” Treatment of the carpet in all rooms was suggested.
Given that evidence I find it proved on balance that: a.During the tenancy the carpets were damaged by cat urine b.The damage was more than fair and tear; c.The landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the costs by having bedroom 2 cleaned and bedroom 3, the lounge and dining room odour treated; d.As a result of the odour treatment of bedroom 3 not being sufficient to remove the odour, it is reasonable to replace the carpet in bedroom 3, rather than continuing with what might be multiple odour treatments that might not prove effective.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and quotes provided.
The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I have therefore taken into account depreciation in relation to the carpet replacement. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan as provided by IRD depreciation tables. Pedestal fan
The premises were provided with furnishings. The landlord says that one of the chattels provided was a pedestal fan which was not there at the final inspection.
The landlord asked for it to be returned by the tenants and it was returned in a damaged state so needs to be replaced.
The tenants note that the pedestal fan is not shown as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. They say that they took the fan with them when they moved out believing it was theirs. They say they checked with their mother who recalled giving it to them. They say they nevertheless gave the fan to the landlord at her insistence.
The fan still operates but photographs clearly show damage to one of its legs.
This is the landlords claim and the onus of proof is on her. In the absence of the fan’s inclusion in the chattels list and having regard to the other evidence heard, I do not find it proved by the landlord that the pedestal fan was a chattel included in the tenancy agreement. That compensation claim is declined. Reinstatement of furniture
The tenants acknowledge that during the tenancy they moved furniture around inside the premises. They say they were entitled to.
The landlord says that she was herself unable to return the furniture to its position at the start of the tenancy and had to hire furniture movers to do that for her at a cost of $125.00, which the invoice shows was for half an hour's work.
The tenants are correct that as they had rented a finished home, they were entitled to arrange the furniture as best suited them. Nevertheless, they ought to have returned the premises to how they were when the tenancy began.
Although the provisions of section 42B do not directly apply as they relate to minor changes to the premises themselves, the principle is the same that: “If a minor change is made in accordance with a request under section 42A, the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.”
I accordingly find that the landlord should be compensated for the reasonable cost of having the items of furniture moved during the tenancy, put back to their original position. In terms of mitigation, I am satisfied that even if the landlord has asked the tenants to do it, they would have refused, believing it was not their obligation.
I do consider that the tenants being charged $125.00 for half an hour's work is excessive in relation to the extent of their breach and a reduced amount is awarded.
As the landlord has been substantially successful with her claim, I reimburse the filing fee.
Each party has applied for suppression of their identifying details. Section 95A RTA provides that: “The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.”
As the landlord has been substantially successful, she is entitled to a suppression order. The grounds for suppression of the tenants’ details are not made out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4768637 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 909 Clive Street, Akina, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4768637 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 909 Clive Street, Akina, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions