What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4772937 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $91.29 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4772937?

Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to give a vali…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Light: $7.92 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $107.14 awarded to landlord; Swimming Pool: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Timer Control: $4.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $151.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772937?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10380015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4772937 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $91.29 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4772937?

Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to give a vali…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Light: $7.92 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $107.14 awarded to landlord; Swimming Pool: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Timer Control: $4.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $151.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772937?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10380015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

150 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4772937 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4772937 — net $91.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$107.14		Rent arrears
Water rates	$151.25		Water rates
Scratch damage to doors and stairs	$680.00		Scratch damage to doors and stairs
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rangehood light	$7.92		Rangehood light
Swimming pool	$60.00		Swimming pool
timer control	$4.98		timer control
Cleaning	$20.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Failure to give a valid notice		$1,000.00	Failure to give a valid notice
Total award	$1,091.29	$1,000.00
Net award	$91.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$91.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4772937 — net $91.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$107.14		Rent arrears
Water rates	$151.25		Water rates
Scratch damage to doors and stairs	$680.00		Scratch damage to doors and stairs
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rangehood light	$7.92		Rangehood light
Swimming pool	$60.00		Swimming pool
timer control	$4.98		timer control
Cleaning	$20.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Failure to give a valid notice		$1,000.00	Failure to give a valid notice
Total award	$1,091.29	$1,000.00
Net award	$91.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$91.29

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $91.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held 23 May 2024.
This tenancy premises is a large two storey 1970’s property with a swimming pool. The tenants lived in the premises for 14 months with their 4 children and their pet dog, a golden retriever. The tenants were permitted to have a dog in the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy ended after the landlord gave the tenants a 90-day notice on the 8 November 2023 citing that she needed the property for her son to live in.
During the tenancy there were no problems between the landlord and the tenant. In the email of 8 November 2023 that accompanied the termination letter the landlord wrote: “You have been wonderful tenants during the tenancy, and it will be sad to see you go.” The claims to be determined.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy for the following: a. Rent – one day $107.14. b. Water bills - $151.25 c. Carpet cleaning $53.00 d. Scratch damage on doors and stair posts $3317.75. e. Carpet and stains $400.00 f. Dog odour and urine stain downstairs $364.79 g. Outside house weeding $180.00 h. Rangehood light missing $7.92 i. Swimming pool brushes and vacuum $60.00 j. Missing timer control $4.98. k. Inside house cleaning $197.37
The tenants accept that they owe the water rates, the missing timer and the rangehood lights. They also accept that their dog damaged two doors and the stairs but dispute the amounts claimed for the repairs.
The tenant claims that the landlord gave an invalid notice for termination. The tenant claims that 4 days after the tenancy ended the landlord had new tenants occupying the property who were not family members. The burden of proof.
Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities, meaning, was it more likely than not that the alleged event happened. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.1 Contemporaneous documents, such as email and texts are often important aids in making factual findings, where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy was intended to end on the 12 December. The landlord says that the tenants ended their tenancy on the 13 December, as they needed extra time for cleaning. The tenants accepted that they handed back the keys on the 13 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants accept the water rates as owed.

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.

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

On the 13 December the landlord and the tenant did a joint inspection of the property. After that inspection the landlord wrote to the tenant confirming what they had discussed and what the landlord wanted to be done. The tenants had arranged to do some further cleaning, weed removal and rubbish removal on Saturday 16 April. Between the 14- 16 April, one of the tenants’ children became unwell and needed surgery and the tenants also suffered the death of a close family member. As a result, they were unable to do the cleaning, weeding and rubbish removal that they had agreed to. They tried to negotiate with the landlord a price that could be paid for the items, but the parties could not agree on the extent of what needed to be done and the amounts that should be paid for those items.
On Sunday the 17 December the tenant came to the property and removed a car that they had left there with the landlord’s permission, and rubbish left at the property. No further cleaning was done at the property by the tenants after the 13 December.
The landlord has done all the cleaning and work on the property herself. She tells me that she has charged out her time at $30 per hour.
The Tenants obligation is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and free from rubbish. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” 5
The landlord says that the toilet, shower, kitchen sink and stovetop needed additional cleaning. She has charged claimed $197.37 for this work, of which $26.36 is for products and the balance of $171.01 is for her time. This equates to having spent 5.7 hours cleaning those items. Weeding.
I have seen the photographs of the property taken by the landlord on the 14 December, I am satisfied that the tenants left the property reasonably clean and tidy overall, but that the upstairs toilet and the stovetop needed additional cleaning. I award the landlord $20 for the time and product used.
The tenants accepted in correspondence with the landlord that they had not had time to weed the garden and spray the weeds.
The tenants say that the gardens were returned in much the same state that they were given in. The landlord has given me both the ingoing and outgoing photographs. The gardens do look quite similar in both.
There is extensive paving at the tenancy, and this would require spraying for weeds. I consider that the tenant should have done this before leaving. There was a small amount of weeding that should have been done.
I consider the landlord’s claim of $180 for this work excessive. This equates to 6 hours work. The landlord confirmed that no cost had been incurred to dispose of the weeds or plants as they had been thrown over the fence onto council land. Having looked at the photographs I consider that an amount of $60.00 or 2 hours work appropriate for the work the landlord has done and I award that amount. The swimming pool.
The landlord seeks $60.00 for cleaning the swimming pool. I have reviewed the photographs and the correspondence submitted by both parties. I consider that the tenants did not leave the pool reasonably clean, it needed to be vacuumed 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 5 As above at (4) and cleaned by the time the photographs were taken on the 14 December and I consider the landlord’s claim for completing this work reasonable. The dog odour.
The landlord claims that there was a strong smell of dog in the house. Smells are very subjective. What is offensive to one person can be inoffensive or even pleasant to another. Strong smells from using the property in the usual ways such as from cooking, or from pets or children are part of the normal use of a property. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants left the property with a dog odour, and that the tenants had a responsibility to rid the property of any dog smell when they left. I say this because: a. The tenancy agreement specifically allows the tenant’s dog to live inside. b. The landlord cannot prove that the odour she found strong, and offensive was from the tenant’s dog or indeed from any dog. The tenant says that the smell may have come from outside. The tenant had also just cleaned the carpet and the smell of wet carpets often smells like wet dog. The landlord’s own dog is pictured at the property on the 14 December.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for removal of dog odour is dismissed. Carpet cleaning.
The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant must clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy, which the tenants did. The landlord claims that the carpet required further cleaning and that she used her own carpet cleaner. I have viewed the photographs and I do not consider that the tenant’s left the carpets dirty, there were some stains which will be addressed below but the carpets were not dirty. The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Doors and stairs.
I am satisfied that the tenants dog scratched 4 doors internally and the 2 French doors externally. Although the landlord and the tenant only noticed damage to 2 doors on the 13 December, the photographs on the 14 December show that there is damage to all the doors as claimed by the landlord.
The 4 internal doors are original, probably 1970’s and are of Rimu veneer. The outside doors are wooden. None of the doors have actually been repaired or replaced since the tenancy ended. The landlord made a claim through her insurance company and was paid out $900 for the doors. The landlord is claiming the costs of repair or replacement totalling $2347.75.
The tenant says that the doors can be found on trade me and other second hand sites for $10-$20 each, but that does not include the time to go and pick them up and install the doors. They accept that the dog damaged the internal doors but say only one door needed replacement and the others could be fixed.
I have considered the quote given by the landlord’s joiner, the age and the condition of the doors before the tenancy, the fact that the landlord has yet to repair or replace the doors and I award the landlord $600.00 for the door damage. I also award the landlord $80.00 for the scratches to the stairs. Carpet staining.
The landlord claimed that the tenants stained the carpets. In April 2023 the tenants had some other stains removed at the request of the landlord. The tenant accepted that there were some additional stains to the carpet but says that these amounted to about 6 and were small. The carpet is 7 years old. The lifespan for the carpet in IRD’s depreciation guide for residential tenancies IR265 is 8 years. The landlord has rented her property out to families for much of the last 7 years. I have viewed the photographs of the condition of the carpet before the tenancy and after the tenancy. I consider the staining to be commensurate with what would be expected as reasonable fair wear and tear for a family of 6, with 4 children to cause in older carpet over a 14-month tenancy. The stains do not show a recklessness by the tenant towards the landlord’s property, or carelessness. The landlord has not proven that the stains are more than fair wear and tear and therefor the landlord’s claim for carpet stain removal is dismissed.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Was the notice to terminate given for invalid reasons?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached s 60AA by giving notice for invalid grounds.
On the 8 November 2023 the landlord gave the tenants a 90 day notice terminating the agreement in February. The reason given by the landlord was that the property was needed as a principal residence for her son.
Under s51 (1) RTA , A landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving the tenants 63 day notice (or more time) if: the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
The tenants say that the landlord’s son is not, and never has been living at the property. The say that the people living at the property are the same as those that moved in on the 17 December. They say they know this as the same two cars [makes redacted] are at the property and there are no other cars that they have frequently seen at the property. 6 The tenants say that two people of [redacted] ethnicity live at the address. They know this as a friend of the family called in on the property not knowing the tenants had moved and had spoken with the new occupants.
The tenants also say that in an email on the 17 December the landlord told them that she had new tenants. The relevant parts of the landlord’s email says: Just let you know that I have rented out my property temporary just so my property is safe especially during the holidays. The tenancy start from today. I will hand the keys to new tenants early this afternoon. I have told the new tenants you have some stuff to pick up today and your car as well. Please make sure go this done today. The property is belong to new tenants today. Anyone else including myself is not allowed to go there without permit from the new tenants.
The landlord told me that she only told the tenants that she could not go onto the property after 17 December because the tenants were mucking her around and she wanted them to pick up their stuff as promised and ‘give her the house back’. 6 The property is close to a busy intersection meaning the tenants would drive past on a regular basis.
The landlord says that her son lives at the property but has two ‘flatmates’. She does not know who these flatmates are but understands that they pay her son rent as flatmates.
The landlord confirmed that her son is of [redacted] ethnicity not [redacted] ethnicity.
The tenants have the obligation of proving prima facie (on the face of it) that the landlord’s son is not living in the property, once the tenants have done that, then the tenant can rebut that proposition by providing evidence that shows that the son is living at the property.
I am satisfied that the tenants have on balance proven that it is unlikely that the landlord’s son is living at the property for the reasons that they have given and in particular the landlord’s email of the 17 December where she advised the tenants that she had new tenants.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to the contrary that shows that her son is living there. This evidence would have been easy to provide because her son could have given evidence, she could have produced utility accounts in his name or mail addressed to him at that addressed or had his ‘flatmates’ give evidence that he lives there. The complete lack of evidence from the landlord showing her son lived at the property allows me to make the inference that he does not live there. I also note that the landlord’s version of events are inconsistent, she told me at the hearing that the people who lived there from the 17 December were not tenants, but told the tenants in an email that they were, she then said that she did not know who was living at the property, but her email of the 17 December indicates that she did know who the tenants were.
I am satisfied that the landlord has given notice for an invalid reason, by saying that her son would be using it as his principle residence when he does not and have breached s 60AA of the RTA.
The tenants have claimed compensation, not exemplary damages under s 60AA. The Tribunal can award compensation for any breach – see s77 (2)(n) RTA. Compensation should restore the parties to the position that they should have been in had the breach not occurred. The tenants seek $2000.00 in compensation.
In Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 the Tribunal awarded compensation for emotional harm after a landlord evicted a tenant without notice and grounds rendering the tenant homeless. Whilst this situation is not of the same gravity as that, the principles relating to award of compensation for emotional harm are the same.7 7 See Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT4315225, paragraphs 117 to 123.
The tenants say that they were very happy living at the property and would have remained there. The tenants say that because the rental property market was so tight that once they got notice they had to accept any home that might meet their needs. As a result, they now live considerably further away from their children’s schools and pay higher rent.
The tenants say that the costs of moving just before Christmas and the dispute over the bond put them in a considerable financial stress. The tenants says that they had to take annual leave to move, which also prevented them from taking this time off later to spend with family.
Taking those factors into account I award the tenants $1200.00 compensation for this breach. Filing fee and name suppression.
As both parties have been somewhat successful, then I do not award them the filing fee (because costs will be borne by each party) and grant them name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4772937 — Property damage at 150 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4772937 — Property damage at 150 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the notice to terminate given for invalid reasons?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the notice to terminate given for invalid reasons?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions