What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4771019 about?

The tribunal order states: Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Meiying Zhu must pay [the

How much money was awarded in case 4771019?

Bedroom: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: (Loss of amenity- air…: $1,142.84 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Loss of amenity- dish…: $2,646.39 awarded to tenant; (Remove white tape from window in so…: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771019?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10340241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4771019 about?

The tribunal order states: Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Meiying Zhu must pay [the

How much money was awarded in case 4771019?

Bedroom: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: (Loss of amenity- air…: $1,142.84 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Loss of amenity- dish…: $2,646.39 awarded to tenant; (Remove white tape from window in so…: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771019?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10340241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4771019 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771019 — net $2,891.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: (Cat hair from curtain	$20.00		Cleaning: (Cat hair from curtain
Repairs: (Remove white tape from window in son's	$475.00		Repairs: (Remove white tape from window in son's
bedroom	$402.50		bedroom
Compensation: (Loss of amenity- dishwasher		$2,646.39	(Loss of amenity- dishwasher
Compensation: (Loss of amenity- air conditioner		$1,142.84	(Loss of amenity- air conditioner
Total award	$897.50	$3,789.23
Net award		$2,891.73
Bond		$3,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,891.73

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The rental premise is in a prestigious area of Auckland. It is a large 326m2 brick and tile home with 5 bedrooms, a study/office, 4 living areas, an open plan lounge kitchen and dining area and 2 bathrooms. It is set on 653m2 section.

The tenants paid the landlord $925.00 rent per week and lived in the premise from 22 December 2021 to 20 November 2023.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that there were areas of the house that should have been cleaned by the tenants that were not, such as: a. Tape around the window of the tenant’s son’s room; b. Mould in the grouting and silicon seals in the shower, around the shower and on the floor in the shower and around it; c. Light dust and a few hairs in the ensuite and other bedroom drawers;. d. Oil on rangehood and stove and kitchen cabinetry; e. Mould and dust on skirting boards between the entry and outside at entrance way and inside/outside glass at entrance way; f. Dirt on light switches and power switches’ g. Duston skirting boards; h. Small amounts of cat hair on the edge of a curtain; i. Some cat hair and some dust in places on the carpet; and j. The garden required weeding and weed spraying and there was green waste to dispose of.

The tenant provided evidence that he and his wife had fully cleaned the premises, including borrowing a Bissell Carpet Cleaner from a friend and purchasing 3 bottles of Bissell carpet shampoo to clean the carpets throughout the house. The tenant confirmed that he and his wife completed the carpet cleaning 2 days before the exit inspection.

In addition, the photographs from the entry inspection showed the house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when the tenancy started. There were webs evident in the yard and the bathrooms, toilets were not clean and the net curtains were dirty and mouldy. A landlord must also provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness as well as in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance.

The tenant proved that he and his wife had to undertake cleaning on the toilets and bathrooms on entry, as it was 22 December 2021 and no cleaning contractors were available. The landlord did get a professional clean done of the house one month after the tenancy started. The tenant and his family had to live in unclean conditions until that time.

The tenant confirmed his son had placed the tape around the window and that this had not been removed when the tenancy ended. This needed to be remedied by the landlord.

I took the state of the property at the beginning of the tenancy into consideration when I considered the landlord’s claim for house and garden related cleaning costs it incurred.

A reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. A landlord will always be left undertaking certain amounts of cleaning to get a property to a lettable standard after a tenant has ended a tenancy, even when the tenant has left the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state.

I have granted the landlord half of the amount claimed for weeding, weed spraying and green waste removal as the photographic evidence proves that half of the property was in an unkempt state at the commencement of the tenancy and required ground maintenance.

I have granted the landlord $20.00 for removal of the cat fu from the corner of a curtain that would have been able to be remedied easily with a vacuum cleaner or a lint roller.

I dismissed the remainder of the landlord’s cleaning claims as dust on skirting boards and mould in grouting and in silicon is not the tenant’s responsibility to remove and the other cleaning claims were trivial in nature or related to oil spray used to clean the range hood leaving some spots or smears. “Reasonably” clean means clean to a standard an average by stander would consider reasonable, not commercially clean, spotless, hotel or motel standard. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by both parties that the tenant left the house in a reasonably clean and tidy state, but for the cat fur on the curtain and some weeding that was required.

The amounts ordered are proved. Did the landlord fail to meet its repair and maintenance obligations during the tenancy?

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .

There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. A. Dish drawers.

The tenant gave evidence that at the commencement of the tenancy (22 December 2021), he emailed the landlord regarding one dish drawer that had an intermittent fault and stopped working mid cycle.

The property manager confirmed that she sent the job to a contractor, and he didn’t go and do the job. The property manager called the contractor two times. but didn’t hear from the contractor and assumed the contractor had called the tenant to make arrangement to investigate and fix the fault. The contractor had 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 may 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. not undertaken the work and as such no invoice was sent to the property manager for payment. The property manager says that because the tenants did not continue to raise the issue, she assumed it had been remedied.

On 19 April 2022, the parties agree the tenant sent a further email to the property manager informing her that he had raised the faulty dish drawer with her in December 2021 and nothing had been done and that the dishwasher had now stopped working and it had become an urgent repair issue for the tenant that he wanted resolved.

On 20 April 2022 the contractor came to investigate the issue and advised the tenant and the property manager the part would be available in 1 month. The tenant confirmed the dish drawers are old and are harder to get parts for, so one month was reasonable.

On 27 June 2022, 2 months after the investigation, the contractor came and repaired the dish drawer. He tested it and it appeared to be working well.

On 4 September 2022, the dish drawer broke down again and the tenant sent email saying they were facing the same issue again with the dish drawer. The tenant confirmed they were getting frustrated as they wanted it repaired properly. The one small dish drawer was not sufficient for the size of their family, and they were finding the prolonged period it was taking to get the issue fully remedied to be frustrating and they were paying for an amenity they could not use.

The property manager confirmed that she had fully informed the owner “we can’t fix the dish drawer anymore and need to replace it”. However, it took until 3 November 2022 for the dish drawer to be replaced.

I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity of a dish drawer, they reasonably expected to be able to use during their tenancy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $2,646.30, made up of a $75.00 rent rebate per week for the periods: a. 22 December 2021 to 27 June 2022 (26 weeks and 5 days). 75 x 26 =$1,950.00. $75.00 divided by 7days x 5 days = $53.55. $53.55 plus $1,950= $2,003.55; and b. 4 September 2022 to 3 November 2022 (8 weeks and 4 days). 75 x 8 =$600.00. $75.00 divided by 7days x 4 days = $42.84. $42.84 plus $600.00= $642.84. B. Air conditioner- living/dining area

The tenant gave evidence that when the tenancy commenced on 22 December 2021, the premise did not comply with the heating standard. The tenancy agreement confirms the premise does not comply and it is not eligible for an exemption. There were two old gas heaters, one upstairs and one downstairs, that did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards requirements. The tenant says these heaters were old and unsafe and he and his family were reluctant to try to use them for safety reasons. he was unsure if they even worked.

The landlord reminded me that the premise need not comply with the heating standard until 90 days after the tenancy commenced, being 22 March 2022.

The tenants claim two air conditioners were installed in the large open plan lounge/dining and kitchen area around the first or second week of April 2022. The air conditioner in the dining area did not heat and the tenant notified the property manager of this on 19 April 2022.

The property manager says she has called the technician to fix the issue and told the tenant to call her back if it was not fixed in a week. She did not hear back from the tenant in a week, so thought all was fixed. the owner had arranged the installation of the heat pumps directly and as such the property manager thought any invoice or report of the issue being remedied may go directly to the owner.

The parties confirm there were several property inspections between 19 April 2022 and 4 September 2022, when the tenant raised the issue again with the property manager. He says he mentioned it at each property inspection, but the issue never got remedied. He also stated one heat pump was insufficient to heat the open plan living area through what was a very cold winter that year.

The Property Manager confirmed she followed this up with the owners on several occasions and that the owner took a long time to get the contractor to come out to investigate and remedy the issue.

On 13 September 2022 the tenant proved they got a message from the contractor informing him the contractor was coming to fix the air conditioner. The air conditioner was finally repaired on 26 September 2022.

The air conditioner responsible for heating part of the large open plan lounge/dining/kitchen area was not working from 19 April 22 to 26 September 2022 (22 weeks 6 days) during all the cold winter months. The gas heaters did not provide a safe alternative to the tenants to heat the house. In addition, gas heaters are known for causing moisture issues inside of homes. As such, the lounge was not heated to a level required by the healthy homes standards with one heat pump.

I find it reasonable to award the tenant a $1, 142.84 rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity of the air conditioner. This rent rebate has been calculated at a rate of $50.00 per week for 22 weeks and 6 days. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claim, I dismiss both claims for reimbursement of the filing fee. These costs lie where they fall.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771019 — net $2,891.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: (Cat hair from curtain	$20.00		Cleaning: (Cat hair from curtain
Repairs: (Remove white tape from window in son's	$475.00		Repairs: (Remove white tape from window in son's
bedroom	$402.50		bedroom
Compensation: (Loss of amenity- dishwasher		$2,646.39	(Loss of amenity- dishwasher
Compensation: (Loss of amenity- air conditioner		$1,142.84	(Loss of amenity- air conditioner
Total award	$897.50	$3,789.23
Net award		$2,891.73
Bond		$3,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,891.73