What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774703 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $46.50 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4774703?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: seizure of tenant’s ve…: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $4,232.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $494.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774703?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10986962-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774703 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $46.50 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4774703?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: seizure of tenant’s ve…: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $4,232.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $494.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774703?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10986962-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774703 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774703 — net $46.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Loss of rent for one week while cleaning and rubbish	$320.00		Loss of rent for one week while cleaning and rubbish
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$4,232.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: skip bin hire and collection	$494.50		Rubbish removal: skip bin hire and collection
Compensation: seizure of tenant’s vehicle		$5,000.00	seizure of tenant’s vehicle
Total award	$5,046.50	$5,000.00
Net award	$46.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$46.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774703 — net $46.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Loss of rent for one week while cleaning and rubbish	$320.00		Loss of rent for one week while cleaning and rubbish
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$4,232.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: skip bin hire and collection	$494.50		Rubbish removal: skip bin hire and collection
Compensation: seizure of tenant’s vehicle		$5,000.00	seizure of tenant’s vehicle
Total award	$5,046.50	$5,000.00
Net award	$46.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$46.50

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $46.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant’s aunt, [name redacted], will collect the tenant’s belongings from the tenancy address at midday, 12pm tomorrow 23 October 2024. The landlord will meet the tenant’s aunt at the letterbox and will personally hand over the items.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had a friend attend with him as a support person and was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. The tenant had his aunt with him as a support person.
This tenancy began in August 2018. The tenant said that he signed a tenancy agreement but did not have a copy. The landlord denied that there had been a written tenancy agreement. Both parties agreed on the date that the tenancy started and that the rent was $320.00 per week.
The tenancy has ended when the police raided the tenant’s property on 23 August 2023 and took the tenant into custody and the landlord effectively took back possession (without a Tribunal order).
Both parties have filed claims. As with all claims before the Tribunal, the onus is on each party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). Claims are usually proved by submitting evidence in the forms of photos, receipts and other documents and by evidence given by the parties or supporting witnesses. The tenant’s claim
The tenant says when he was released from police custody 28 days after the Police raid he could not access the property and all his possessions had been removed.
He later discovered that his car had been transferred into the landlord’s name.
The tenant has filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking refund of his bond of $1600 and compensation for his possessions as follows: a. Nissan Teana car - $6,500.00 b. Computer - $2,000.00 c. Headphones (x3 @$200 each) - $600.00 d. Kitchen items - $450.00 e. Clothes/shoes - $1,000.00
The tenant had also sought the return of his driver’s licence and passport but these have now been returned by the landlord. Bond
The tenant said that he paid a bond of $1600 and wants this returned. The landlord denied that the tenant had paid bond. The tenant was unable to produce any evidence proving that he had paid a bond and the absence of any such evidence I am unable to find the tenant’s claim for the bond proved. This claim is dismissed. Personal items (excluding car)
The tenant did not provide photographs or other evidence of ownership of his personal items (or the value of those items), but did identify a set of headphones in one of the photos filed by the landlord after the Police raid.
With respect to the personal items (excluding the car) at the initial hearing of this matter the landlord said that: a. he lives in the adjoining flat and was present when the tenant was taken into Police custody. The landlord said that he was unable to enter the property until the Police had conducted a full search of the property during which they confiscated a large number of items including electronic devices. The landlord produced a list of items removed by Police for evidential purposes. b. he was not allowed to enter the tenant’s flat until later that afternoon and when he entered he was shocked to find it in a very messy and dirty state. He said that he asked the Police what he should do with the tenant’s belongings and that the Police told him that he should dispose of them.
At the hearing today the landlord said that he did in fact have some bags and boxes of items including clothes, kitchen items, and a box with headphones and produced photos of the items. The landlord has now been storing those items for over a year. The landlord has sought an order for disposal of these items.
It appears that the Police had seized some of the tenant’s possessions, the landlord has disposed of what appeared to be rubbish, and the landlord is holding the remainer of the items. After some discussion between the parties it was agreed that the tenant’s Aunt, who was present at the hearing today, would collect the tenant’s items. The parties agreed that the landlord would meet the tenant’s Aunt at the letterbox of the tenancy and that he will hand the items over. The landlord is not to leave the items at the letterbox until the tenant’s Aunt has arrived to collect them. I have made orders in respect of these items by consent. Car
The tenant provided details of his car and copies of searches on TradeMe showing asking prices for similar vehicles. At the hearing today he estimated that the car has a value of between $5,000 and $6,000.
With respect to the car, the landlord initially said that he had kept the tenant’s car and transferred it into his own name (with the permission of the tenant’s family) because the tenant owed him money. Later he said that he had transferred the car into his own name for security reasons.
The landlord was not entitled to seize the tenant’s car. The proper course was for the landlord to apply to the Tribunal for orders and I explained this to the landlord at the previous hearing. I also have serious concerns about the various explanations that the landlord has given with respect to the car.
The tenant says that he does not want this car back as he has no information as to the car’s condition. In any event the landlord is now the registered owner of the car.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the car. I have reviewed the evidence as to value and consider that compensation of $5,000 is appropriate and reasonable. I order that the landlord pay compensation of $5,000 to the tenant for the value of the car. The landlord’s claim
The landlord has now filed a claim for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage as follows: a. Interior wall repair - $4,370.00; b. Carpet removal and replacement - $2,472.50; c. Door repair and hinge replacement - $297.50; d. Sliding and bi-fold door lock replacement - $833.75; e. Replace shower box (remove and install) - $1,667.50; f. Furniture provided with the tenancy: i. Corner sofa - $1,500.00; ii. Dining table - $200.00 iii. Dining chairs (x4) - $200.00. g. Compensation of eight weeks rent as remediation period - $3040.00; h. Cleaning and mould removal - $4,232.00; i. Skip bin - $494.50.
The landlord also sought orders to dispose of the tenant’s property as follows: Clothing, headphones, suitcase of items, cooking equipment and bedding. These matters have already been dealt with by consent and I make no further orders in respect to these items. Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Tenants must also keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
The landlord said that he was shocked to discover the condition of the property when he entered following the police raid. He said that the property was so dirty that it looked like it had never been cleaned and that were huge amounts of rubbish throughout the property.
The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the property. These photos show a shower covered in dark grime, a cook top covered in some sort of greasy substance, mould, and that the property was very unclean generally and that huge amounts of rubbish were piled up in almost every room.
The landlord said that it took the cleaners several days to clean and remove all of the rubbish and that the rubbish filled a 9m cubed skip bin. He produced an invoice from the cleaners in the amount of $4,232.00. He sought $494.50 for the skip bin.
The tenant denied that the property was unclean and that there was rubbish at the property. The tenant’s denial was simply not plausible given the photos produced by the landlord.
I am conscious that this tenancy did not end in an orthodox manner (either by one party giving notice or by order of the Tribunal). The circumstances were unusual. The landlord should not have taken back possession without the consent of the tenant or an order from the Tribunal.
However the circumstances surrounding the end of the tenancy do not change the fact that he property was left in a very dirty condition and that an enormous amount of rubbish was left behind.
Given the state of the property and the rubbish left behind I consider the cleaning/rubbish removal invoice to be reasonable. I accept that additional precautions were required due to possible methamphetamine contamination. I order that the tenant pay compensation to the landlord in the amount of $4,232.00.
The landlord did not have an invoice for the skip bin but he had photos of the skip bin showing it full of the rubbish removed from the property. A quick check of the website for the skip bin company confirmed the amount claimed by the landlord and I order that the tenant pay compensation to the landlord for the skip bin in the amount of $494.50. Damage and related claims
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. 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.
The landlord sought compensation for damage as set out in paragraph 19.a – f above.
The landlord produced some photos from the end of the tenancy together with a quote for repairs and a screenshot showing the cost of a new corner couch from Freedom Furniture.
The tenant denied causing any damage. He said that the door was not damaged by the Police as he opened the door for them. He said that all of the keys were left in the property as he was immediately arrested and taken into custody without any of his possessions.
The landlord did not produce any evidence showing the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. He said that the property had been newly renovated at the start of the tenancy and explained that he had sought council consent at that stage and that the council officer might be available to give evidence. However as this is now the third hearing of this matter (the tenant’s claim having been adjourned twice to allow the landlord time to file this claim) I was not prepared to allow the landlord further time to obtain this evidence or to call the witness (without prior notice) during the hearing.
In any event the landlord failed to produce evidence of much of the damage claimed. There was no evidence of wall damage other than marks on a kitchen wall and only one photo of the carpet which did not clearly show any damage. The evidence of door damage is in my view inconclusive. The shower was very dirty and I have already awarded compensation for cleaning but there was no evidence before me proving that the shower had to be replaced, and in fact the landlord confirmed that it has not been.
The landlord said that the tenant had damaged a sofa, dining table and chairs but there was no evidence of damage (let alone the condition of these items at the start of the tenancy). I was advised that these items have not been replaced.
In the circumstances I find that the damage to the wall, shower box and carpet is not proved, and in relation to the other items I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for damage and related claims are dismissed. Claim for lost rent
The landlord has claimed that he lost eight weeks of rent while repairing the damage and cleaning and removing rubbish. However it appears that the landlord has actually done very little repair work. I accept that the cleaning and rubbish removal required was very extensive and so award one week of rent in the amount of $320.00. It is to be expected that landlords will need to do some cleaning in between tenancies, but in this case the cleaning required and rubbish removal was so extensive that I accept some compensation for lost rent is reasonable. Filing fees and name suppression
Both parties have had some degree of success in their respective claims. I therefore see no benefit in reimbursing the filing fees.
As each party has had some success I consider that it is appropriate for me to exercise my discretion to suppress the parties’ names and identifying details pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774703 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774703 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions