What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773629 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Ireland Property Management Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4773629?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of…: $565.48 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains and in…: $474.95 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $114.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773629?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10179716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773629 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Ireland Property Management Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4773629?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of…: $565.48 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains and in…: $474.95 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $114.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773629?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10179716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 4, 415 Mairehau Road, Parklands, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773629 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773629 — net $400.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$114.00		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$736.00		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed	$565.48		Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed
Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation	$474.95		Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation
Compensation: General damages for delay in repairs		$300.00	General damages for delay in repairs
Total award	$2,340.43	$300.00
Net award	$400.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.43

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Ireland Property Management Limited as agent for Jessica and Toby Cartwright $400.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Ireland Property Management Limited as agent for Jessica and Toby Cartwright immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish, under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to show that the property interior was not left reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The tenant acknowledged some areas had not been cleaned but disputed the amount claimed ($450.00).
I find the amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had left an exercise machine at the property which had to be removed at a cost of $114.00.
The tenant explained that a neighbour was to take the machine but decided it did not suit her so put it back. The tenant did not accept responsibility for the cost of removing the machine.
As it is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure all rubbish is removed from the premises, I find that the tenant is responsible for the cost of removal.
The landlord claimed that the lawn and garden were not left in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant accepted some liability but not for the full amount claimed.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 12 October 2023. This notice stated that the premises were untidy and in need of cleaning and that, “the gardens are untidy and overgrown and the animal enclosures need to be removed, please”.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to show that the garden work had not been completed prior to the tenants vacating.
I acknowledge that the tenants went to some trouble and expense to try to repair the damaged lawn. The repair did not work, and the tenants did not think they should be liable for the full cost of further repairs.
The tenant is expected to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way. The tenants’ animal cages and/or animals damaged the lawn, and it was not repaired prior to the end of the tenancy. I find the tenant is responsible for the cost of those repairs.
The garden invoice included items which I do not consider that the tenant should be responsible for (topping up front gardens with extra soil, cost of spray and related labour). I have discounted the amount claimed to reflect the costs for which the tenant should properly be liable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.
During the tenancy the tenants’ cat damaged curtains in the property.
The tenants accepted responsibility for the cost of replacement curtains at the hearing.
The tenant also accepted responsibility for damage to carpet in one bedroom. However, they disputed the amount claimed.
The cost of replacement carpet in this room was quoted at $1,696.45 (including replacement underlay).
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages claim
Under a directions order dated 6 March 2024, the tenant was instructed to provide a clear statement of their claims within 14 days of the date of that order.
No such clarification was received in writing, but the tenants were able to clarify their claims at this hearing.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must (amongst other matters): provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and, comply with the healthy homes standards
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
In terms of the alleged breach of the healthy homes requirements, I do not find that the tenant has proven such a breach.
The tenants relied on personal observations and earthquake information provided by the Earthquake Commission after an official information request made on 31 January 2024 (after the tenancy had ended).
The EQC information confirms that the premises was not repaired after the Canterbury earthquake sequence.
The tenants considered that this meant that the property did not comply with healthy homes requirements and was effectively unliveable. There is no evidence before this Tribunal to prove this and the related claim for exemplary damages must fail.
The tenants also consider that the landlord failed to maintain the property. This was particularly in reference to a leaking kitchen window.
This leak was first mentioned to the property owner (who originally managed the property herself), within a few months of the beginning of the tenancy.
The owner had the leak looked at straight away, but a repair was not completed at that time.
Over the term of the tenancy, the leak had been reported by the tenants on a number of occasions. This was both to the owner and then to the management company.
The issue was looked into, and attempts made to repair it but nothing worked permanently until the current landlord had the window repaired in October 2022.
The landlord considered that the issue was resolved but the tenant said that it continued to be a problem and that they had raised it again with the Ireland’s representatives.
At the hearing Ms Oquist said no further work had been done on the window since October 2022 and that it no longer leaked. Detailed information was provided from the tradesperson who completed the repair.
He confirmed that the repair was sound and that further water damage in the kitchen was caused by a combination of condensation from the window glass and a faulty kitchen bench design allowing water to damage the joinery.
Although this leak took longer than it should have to be repaired, I do not consider that it is an intentional breach of the general obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair such that would give rise to an obligation to pay exemplary damages under the requirements outlined in 33 above.
However, the Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (see above) the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when awarding compensation: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Given the factors above, I consider the sum of $300.00 to be reasonable compensation for the lack of action in facilitating an effective repair of the kitchen window in a timely way. It is clear from the evidence before me that the tenants raised the matter a number of times over a lengthy period and that it was impacting their enjoyment of the property to some extent.
A number of other matters were addressed at the hearing. Although these matters were useful in terms of background, they did not give rise to any identified breaches of the Act and therefore they do not need to be canvases here.

Should a suppression order be made?

The tenants applied for a suppression order in their application.
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published.
Although the tenants have not been substantially successful, they have had some success and I consider that a suppression order is appropriate in this case. I therefore make an order that the tenant’s names and identifying details be suppressed. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success, filing fees fall where they lie.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773629 — net $400.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$114.00		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$736.00		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed	$565.48		Replace furnishings: Carpet (1/3 of total amount claimed
Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation	$474.95		Replace furnishings: Curtains and installation
Compensation: General damages for delay in repairs		$300.00	General damages for delay in repairs
Total award	$2,340.43	$300.00
Net award	$400.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.43

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Ireland Property Management Limited as agent for Jessica and Toby Cartwright $400.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Ireland Property Management Limited as agent for Jessica and Toby Cartwright immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish, under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to show that the property interior was not left reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The tenant acknowledged some areas had not been cleaned but disputed the amount claimed ($450.00).
I find the amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had left an exercise machine at the property which had to be removed at a cost of $114.00.
The tenant explained that a neighbour was to take the machine but decided it did not suit her so put it back. The tenant did not accept responsibility for the cost of removing the machine.
As it is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure all rubbish is removed from the premises, I find that the tenant is responsible for the cost of removal.
The landlord claimed that the lawn and garden were not left in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant accepted some liability but not for the full amount claimed.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 12 October 2023. This notice stated that the premises were untidy and in need of cleaning and that, “the gardens are untidy and overgrown and the animal enclosures need to be removed, please”.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to show that the garden work had not been completed prior to the tenants vacating.
I acknowledge that the tenants went to some trouble and expense to try to repair the damaged lawn. The repair did not work, and the tenants did not think they should be liable for the full cost of further repairs.
The tenant is expected to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way. The tenants’ animal cages and/or animals damaged the lawn, and it was not repaired prior to the end of the tenancy. I find the tenant is responsible for the cost of those repairs.
The garden invoice included items which I do not consider that the tenant should be responsible for (topping up front gardens with extra soil, cost of spray and related labour). I have discounted the amount claimed to reflect the costs for which the tenant should properly be liable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.
During the tenancy the tenants’ cat damaged curtains in the property.
The tenants accepted responsibility for the cost of replacement curtains at the hearing.
The tenant also accepted responsibility for damage to carpet in one bedroom. However, they disputed the amount claimed.
The cost of replacement carpet in this room was quoted at $1,696.45 (including replacement underlay).
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages claim
Under a directions order dated 6 March 2024, the tenant was instructed to provide a clear statement of their claims within 14 days of the date of that order.
No such clarification was received in writing, but the tenants were able to clarify their claims at this hearing.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must (amongst other matters): provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and, comply with the healthy homes standards
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
In terms of the alleged breach of the healthy homes requirements, I do not find that the tenant has proven such a breach.
The tenants relied on personal observations and earthquake information provided by the Earthquake Commission after an official information request made on 31 January 2024 (after the tenancy had ended).
The EQC information confirms that the premises was not repaired after the Canterbury earthquake sequence.
The tenants considered that this meant that the property did not comply with healthy homes requirements and was effectively unliveable. There is no evidence before this Tribunal to prove this and the related claim for exemplary damages must fail.
The tenants also consider that the landlord failed to maintain the property. This was particularly in reference to a leaking kitchen window.
This leak was first mentioned to the property owner (who originally managed the property herself), within a few months of the beginning of the tenancy.
The owner had the leak looked at straight away, but a repair was not completed at that time.
Over the term of the tenancy, the leak had been reported by the tenants on a number of occasions. This was both to the owner and then to the management company.
The issue was looked into, and attempts made to repair it but nothing worked permanently until the current landlord had the window repaired in October 2022.
The landlord considered that the issue was resolved but the tenant said that it continued to be a problem and that they had raised it again with the Ireland’s representatives.
At the hearing Ms Oquist said no further work had been done on the window since October 2022 and that it no longer leaked. Detailed information was provided from the tradesperson who completed the repair.
He confirmed that the repair was sound and that further water damage in the kitchen was caused by a combination of condensation from the window glass and a faulty kitchen bench design allowing water to damage the joinery.
Although this leak took longer than it should have to be repaired, I do not consider that it is an intentional breach of the general obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair such that would give rise to an obligation to pay exemplary damages under the requirements outlined in 33 above.
However, the Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (see above) the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when awarding compensation: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Given the factors above, I consider the sum of $300.00 to be reasonable compensation for the lack of action in facilitating an effective repair of the kitchen window in a timely way. It is clear from the evidence before me that the tenants raised the matter a number of times over a lengthy period and that it was impacting their enjoyment of the property to some extent.
A number of other matters were addressed at the hearing. Although these matters were useful in terms of background, they did not give rise to any identified breaches of the Act and therefore they do not need to be canvases here.

Should a suppression order be made?

The tenants applied for a suppression order in their application.
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published.
Although the tenants have not been substantially successful, they have had some success and I consider that a suppression order is appropriate in this case. I therefore make an order that the tenant’s names and identifying details be suppressed. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success, filing fees fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773629 — Cleanliness at Flat 4, 415 Mairehau Road, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773629 — Cleanliness at Flat 4, 415 Mairehau Road, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions