What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4783284 about?

The tribunal order states: Alison Janine Tepania must pay [The tenant/s] $131.96 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4783284?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity - Oven: $882.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Company Fee: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $771.43 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $253.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4783284?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4783284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10321047-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4783284 about?

The tribunal order states: Alison Janine Tepania must pay [The tenant/s] $131.96 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4783284?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity - Oven: $882.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Company Fee: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $771.43 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $253.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4783284?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4783284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10321047-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

294 Great North Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4783284 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4783284 — net $131.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$771.43		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00		Bond not lodged
Water rates	$253.75		Water rates
Repairs: Bathroom door	$75.00		Repairs: Bathroom door
Compensation: Power company fee		$250.00	Power company fee
Compensation: Loss of amenity - oven		$882.14	Loss of amenity - oven
Rubbish removal		$100.00	Rubbish removal
Garage remote		$60.00	Garage remote
Cleaning		$140.00	Cleaning
Total award	$1,300.18	$1,432.14
Net award		$131.96
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$131.96

Order

Alison Janine Tepania must pay [The tenant/s] $131.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 4 February 2023 and ended on 8 October 2023.
The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 4 February 2024, but the landlord asked to end the tenancy early. The tenant agreed and originally the end date for the tenancy was 17 October 2023. The tenant had moved out by 7 October 2023 and an end of tenancy inspection was held on 8 October 2023. I have therefore determined that the tenancy ended on 8 October 2023.
The tenant applied for reimbursement of the power company joining fee, compensation for loss of amenity (oven), rubbish removal and for repairing the driveway and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation for damage to the bathroom door, laundry door and under house area, cleaning the exterior area and reimbursement for a garage remote. Tenant application
When the tenancy began the tenant was given a credit of $250.00 from the power company on the basis that she would remain with that company for 12 months. The tenant was not able to remain with the company as the landlord sought to end the fixed term tenancy early. The tenant seeks this cost from the landlord as a consequence of agreeing to end the tenancy early.
The landlord says that the tenant should have thought about this when she agreed to end the tenancy early and instead not agree.
The Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy 1 . The Act provides that where the Tribunal makes such an order the Tribunal can also order that one party pay the other an amount by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage which would result from the reduction of the term of the tenancy 2 .
While it is the parties who agreed to the reduction of the term the tenant has established that she has suffered a loss because of the reduction. I consider it fair and reasonable that she is compensated for that loss. I therefore award compensation to the tenant of $250.00.
The tenant claimed for loss of amenity as the oven was not able to be used during the term of the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged that the oven had not been repaired. 1 Section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant had sought compensation of $50.00 per week. At the hearing the landlord agreed to compensation at the rate of $25.00 per week and the tenant accepted that amount. By agreement the tenant is awarded $882.14 which is calculated at $25.00 for each week of the tenancy (35 weeks and 2 days).
The tenant claimed for removal of rubbish that was at the premises when the tenancy began. There had been some communication between the parties about removal of the rubbish. The landlord acknowledged that there was some rubbish at the premises but also said that there was agreement for some of it to be collected.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the tenant disposed of the rubbish. While the tenant seeks $150.00 for removal of the rubbish, I consider this to be excessive for the amount of rubbish left. Also, no invoice was produced for the refuse station used to dispose of the rubbish. Instead, I award $100.00 which I consider reasonable for removal of the rubbish.
The tenant sought compensation for repairs carried out to the driveway. It turned out that there was no agreement between the parties for this work to be carried out and for the landlord to be responsible for the cost. The claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframe. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant paid the bond money to the landlord on 2 February 2023. An email was produced from the Bond Centre acknowledging payment of the bond on 6 December 2023.
Payment of the bond was not made to the Bond Centre until almost two months after the tenancy ended. The landlord acknowledges that she did not pay the bond when she was required to and said that it was due to an oversight. The landlord owns other tenancies so should be award of the requirement to lodge the bond. I therefore determine that the landlord intentionally did not pay the bond. The bond money should be paid to the Bond Centre and in situations such as this one, where there is a dispute at the end of the tenancy, it is clear why it needs to happen. It is in the public interest for bond money to be lodged by the landlord within the timeframe.
I consider that a reasonable award for this unlawful act is $200.00.
The bond is released to the tenant as sought. Landlord application
The tenancy ended on 8 October 2023. The landlord had agreed to one week’s free rent early in the tenancy due to a flea infestation.
At the date of hearing the tenant owes $771.43 rent arrears which is ordered.
The landlord produced water rates invoices. The tenant had paid the fixed charge and paper bill charge since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant should not pay these charges as the Act only requires the tenant to pay water based on consumption 3 .
These charges have been deducted from the amount paid by the tenant and the amount sought by the landlord. The balance owed by the tenant is $330.83 which is ordered.
The landlord sought compensation for alterations carried out by the tenant to the bathroom door. The tenant attached a lock to the door for privacy. The tenant says that she spoke with the landlord about this. Even if she did speak with the landlord, the tenant should, unless otherwise agreed by the landlord, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as before the change was made 4 .
The landlord seeks $200.00 to repair this modification. I consider this amount to be excessive as all that is required is to remove the screws holding piece of wood that the lock is attached to and repair the few holes in the door and door jamb. I have awarded $75.00 for this which I consider to be reasonable.
The landlord claims for damage to the laundry door. The tenant denies causing any damage or installing the lock. The landlord was not able to produce any photographs of the door from before the tenancy. It is therefore not possible to determine that any damage was caused to the door during the tenancy or that the tenant is responsible. That claim is dismissed. 3 Section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord claims for damage caused to the board attached to the crawlspace of the house. From the photographs it looks like the fibre cement board is damaged. Apparently, this is the area under the deck.
This damage occurred sometime between when the tenancy commenced on 4 February 2023 and 17 February 2023 when there was communication between the parties about the damage. At that time the tenant denied responsibility.
At the hearing the tenant produced evidence to show that she received an emergency alert on 12 February 2023 in relation to Cyclone Gabrielle approaching. There was damage to the fence of the premises due to the cyclone.
As the crawlspace is not visible from inside the premises the damage was not discovered until the landlord visited the premises.
I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is responsible for the damage caused. The damage could either have been caused by the cyclone or by someone else. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims for the cost of clearing the outside area including mowing the lawn. The landlord produced photographs showing that the lawn needed mowing. The tenant acknowledged that the lawn needed mowing but says that they were unable to do so before the tenancy ended due to the weather.
Regardless of the weather it is the tenant’s responsibility to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 5 which includes the outside area.
The landlord claims $140.00 for this work. The tenant thinks that this is too much. She says that the landlord had previously paid $30.00 for the lawn to be mowed. I have considered the photographs, including one of a fire pit left by the tenant. I have awarded $140.00 because the lawn was quite long, and an end of tenancy clean up would involve more than a standard lawn mow and also to include the other cleaning.
The landlord claims $60.00 for the garage remote that was not returned. The tenant acknowledges this and agrees to the amount sought.
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I make an order suppressing the tenant’s name as she requested in her application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4783284 — net $131.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$771.43		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00		Bond not lodged
Water rates	$253.75		Water rates
Repairs: Bathroom door	$75.00		Repairs: Bathroom door
Compensation: Power company fee		$250.00	Power company fee
Compensation: Loss of amenity - oven		$882.14	Loss of amenity - oven
Rubbish removal		$100.00	Rubbish removal
Garage remote		$60.00	Garage remote
Cleaning		$140.00	Cleaning
Total award	$1,300.18	$1,432.14
Net award		$131.96
Bond		$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$131.96

Order

Alison Janine Tepania must pay [The tenant/s] $131.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 4 February 2023 and ended on 8 October 2023.
The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 4 February 2024, but the landlord asked to end the tenancy early. The tenant agreed and originally the end date for the tenancy was 17 October 2023. The tenant had moved out by 7 October 2023 and an end of tenancy inspection was held on 8 October 2023. I have therefore determined that the tenancy ended on 8 October 2023.
The tenant applied for reimbursement of the power company joining fee, compensation for loss of amenity (oven), rubbish removal and for repairing the driveway and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation for damage to the bathroom door, laundry door and under house area, cleaning the exterior area and reimbursement for a garage remote. Tenant application
When the tenancy began the tenant was given a credit of $250.00 from the power company on the basis that she would remain with that company for 12 months. The tenant was not able to remain with the company as the landlord sought to end the fixed term tenancy early. The tenant seeks this cost from the landlord as a consequence of agreeing to end the tenancy early.
The landlord says that the tenant should have thought about this when she agreed to end the tenancy early and instead not agree.
The Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy 1 . The Act provides that where the Tribunal makes such an order the Tribunal can also order that one party pay the other an amount by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage which would result from the reduction of the term of the tenancy 2 .
While it is the parties who agreed to the reduction of the term the tenant has established that she has suffered a loss because of the reduction. I consider it fair and reasonable that she is compensated for that loss. I therefore award compensation to the tenant of $250.00.
The tenant claimed for loss of amenity as the oven was not able to be used during the term of the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged that the oven had not been repaired. 1 Section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant had sought compensation of $50.00 per week. At the hearing the landlord agreed to compensation at the rate of $25.00 per week and the tenant accepted that amount. By agreement the tenant is awarded $882.14 which is calculated at $25.00 for each week of the tenancy (35 weeks and 2 days).
The tenant claimed for removal of rubbish that was at the premises when the tenancy began. There had been some communication between the parties about removal of the rubbish. The landlord acknowledged that there was some rubbish at the premises but also said that there was agreement for some of it to be collected.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the tenant disposed of the rubbish. While the tenant seeks $150.00 for removal of the rubbish, I consider this to be excessive for the amount of rubbish left. Also, no invoice was produced for the refuse station used to dispose of the rubbish. Instead, I award $100.00 which I consider reasonable for removal of the rubbish.
The tenant sought compensation for repairs carried out to the driveway. It turned out that there was no agreement between the parties for this work to be carried out and for the landlord to be responsible for the cost. The claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframe. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant paid the bond money to the landlord on 2 February 2023. An email was produced from the Bond Centre acknowledging payment of the bond on 6 December 2023.
Payment of the bond was not made to the Bond Centre until almost two months after the tenancy ended. The landlord acknowledges that she did not pay the bond when she was required to and said that it was due to an oversight. The landlord owns other tenancies so should be award of the requirement to lodge the bond. I therefore determine that the landlord intentionally did not pay the bond. The bond money should be paid to the Bond Centre and in situations such as this one, where there is a dispute at the end of the tenancy, it is clear why it needs to happen. It is in the public interest for bond money to be lodged by the landlord within the timeframe.
I consider that a reasonable award for this unlawful act is $200.00.
The bond is released to the tenant as sought. Landlord application
The tenancy ended on 8 October 2023. The landlord had agreed to one week’s free rent early in the tenancy due to a flea infestation.
At the date of hearing the tenant owes $771.43 rent arrears which is ordered.
The landlord produced water rates invoices. The tenant had paid the fixed charge and paper bill charge since the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant should not pay these charges as the Act only requires the tenant to pay water based on consumption 3 .
These charges have been deducted from the amount paid by the tenant and the amount sought by the landlord. The balance owed by the tenant is $330.83 which is ordered.
The landlord sought compensation for alterations carried out by the tenant to the bathroom door. The tenant attached a lock to the door for privacy. The tenant says that she spoke with the landlord about this. Even if she did speak with the landlord, the tenant should, unless otherwise agreed by the landlord, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as before the change was made 4 .
The landlord seeks $200.00 to repair this modification. I consider this amount to be excessive as all that is required is to remove the screws holding piece of wood that the lock is attached to and repair the few holes in the door and door jamb. I have awarded $75.00 for this which I consider to be reasonable.
The landlord claims for damage to the laundry door. The tenant denies causing any damage or installing the lock. The landlord was not able to produce any photographs of the door from before the tenancy. It is therefore not possible to determine that any damage was caused to the door during the tenancy or that the tenant is responsible. That claim is dismissed. 3 Section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord claims for damage caused to the board attached to the crawlspace of the house. From the photographs it looks like the fibre cement board is damaged. Apparently, this is the area under the deck.
This damage occurred sometime between when the tenancy commenced on 4 February 2023 and 17 February 2023 when there was communication between the parties about the damage. At that time the tenant denied responsibility.
At the hearing the tenant produced evidence to show that she received an emergency alert on 12 February 2023 in relation to Cyclone Gabrielle approaching. There was damage to the fence of the premises due to the cyclone.
As the crawlspace is not visible from inside the premises the damage was not discovered until the landlord visited the premises.
I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is responsible for the damage caused. The damage could either have been caused by the cyclone or by someone else. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims for the cost of clearing the outside area including mowing the lawn. The landlord produced photographs showing that the lawn needed mowing. The tenant acknowledged that the lawn needed mowing but says that they were unable to do so before the tenancy ended due to the weather.
Regardless of the weather it is the tenant’s responsibility to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 5 which includes the outside area.
The landlord claims $140.00 for this work. The tenant thinks that this is too much. She says that the landlord had previously paid $30.00 for the lawn to be mowed. I have considered the photographs, including one of a fire pit left by the tenant. I have awarded $140.00 because the lawn was quite long, and an end of tenancy clean up would involve more than a standard lawn mow and also to include the other cleaning.
The landlord claims $60.00 for the garage remote that was not returned. The tenant acknowledges this and agrees to the amount sought.
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I make an order suppressing the tenant’s name as she requested in her application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4783284 — Cleanliness at 294 Great North Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4783284 — Cleanliness at 294 Great North Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions