What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777391 about?

The tribunal order states: Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Deeks & Dowling Ltd must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4777391?

Compensation: $960.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777391?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9952991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777391 about?

The tribunal order states: Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Deeks & Dowling Ltd must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4777391?

Compensation: $960.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777391?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9952991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777391 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777391 — net $980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$960.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$980.44

Order

Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Deeks & Dowling Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $980.44, calculated as shown in table below:
The amount owing is to be immediately deducted from the rent payable by the tenant for the premises.
The landlord is to immediately arrange and pay for professional cleaning of the carpets at a time suitable to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to make sure the premises were reasonably clean and that the previous tenant’s possessions had been removed at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted that when he moved into the premises, two days after the tenancy began, he found the flat unclean, in particular the shower drain, washing machine and carpets.
In support of his claim the tenant provided a property inspection report which he had filled out noting the problems with cleanliness.
Further the tenant was unhappy about the number of items left behind by the previous occupant, which had not been removed.
The tenant wanted compensation for the two days he took off work to move in, and for the cleaning he undertook over a period of around two weeks.
In response, the landlord did not dispute that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness or that all of the previous occupants possessions had not been removed.
The landlord provided a property inspection report dated 7/11/2023 which recorded the premises as being in “good condition”.
Further the landlord submitted that a cleaner had cleaned the microwave and oven before the tenant moved in.
As the landlord accepted the premises were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy an offer had been made to the tenant of two weeks rent reduction and for the carpets to be professionally cleaned.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by breaching section 45(1)(a).

Should compensation and/or exemplary damages be awarded?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is intent.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The landlord did take some steps towards having the premises cleaned, albeit that these turned out to be insufficient.
Further the landlord immediately arranged to remove the possessions which had been left at the premises by the previous occupant.
I consider exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.
However, I have awarded compensation.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
In the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties I have awarded the compensation offered by the landlord, because I consider the amount reasonable in the circumstances.
In addition to the monetary compensation the landlord has agreed to have the carpets professionally cleaned which I consider is appropriate.
While the tenant’s frustration over the situation is understandable, he has not provided any evidence about what, if any loss he has suffered.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because he has been largely successful with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777391 — net $980.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$960.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$980.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$980.44

Order

Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Deeks & Dowling Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $980.44, calculated as shown in table below:
The amount owing is to be immediately deducted from the rent payable by the tenant for the premises.
The landlord is to immediately arrange and pay for professional cleaning of the carpets at a time suitable to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to make sure the premises were reasonably clean and that the previous tenant’s possessions had been removed at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted that when he moved into the premises, two days after the tenancy began, he found the flat unclean, in particular the shower drain, washing machine and carpets.
In support of his claim the tenant provided a property inspection report which he had filled out noting the problems with cleanliness.
Further the tenant was unhappy about the number of items left behind by the previous occupant, which had not been removed.
The tenant wanted compensation for the two days he took off work to move in, and for the cleaning he undertook over a period of around two weeks.
In response, the landlord did not dispute that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness or that all of the previous occupants possessions had not been removed.
The landlord provided a property inspection report dated 7/11/2023 which recorded the premises as being in “good condition”.
Further the landlord submitted that a cleaner had cleaned the microwave and oven before the tenant moved in.
As the landlord accepted the premises were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy an offer had been made to the tenant of two weeks rent reduction and for the carpets to be professionally cleaned.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
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.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by breaching section 45(1)(a).

Should compensation and/or exemplary damages be awarded?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is intent.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The landlord did take some steps towards having the premises cleaned, albeit that these turned out to be insufficient.
Further the landlord immediately arranged to remove the possessions which had been left at the premises by the previous occupant.
I consider exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.
However, I have awarded compensation.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
In the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties I have awarded the compensation offered by the landlord, because I consider the amount reasonable in the circumstances.
In addition to the monetary compensation the landlord has agreed to have the carpets professionally cleaned which I consider is appropriate.
While the tenant’s frustration over the situation is understandable, he has not provided any evidence about what, if any loss he has suffered.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the tenant because he has been largely successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777391 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777391 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should compensation and/or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should compensation and/or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions