What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4786983?

The tribunal order states: Cory Dean Rees and Brodie Erin Rees must pay Liam James and Shannon

How much money was awarded in case 4786983?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786983?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786983?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10417181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4786983?

The tribunal order states: Cory Dean Rees and Brodie Erin Rees must pay Liam James and Shannon

How much money was awarded in case 4786983?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786983?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786983?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10417181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

838 Mangleton Road, Kereru, RD 1, Hastings 4171 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786983 — Property damage

Order

Cory Dean Rees and Brodie Erin Rees must pay Liam James and Shannon James $2,054.52 from the bond, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlordsTenants Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond $300.00 Compensation: grounds work$900.00 Fencing repairs$1,454.52 Total award$2,354.52$300.00 Net award$2,054.52 Bond distribution$2,054.52 $945.48
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5789073-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Liam James and Shannon James: $2,054.52 Cory Dean Rees and Brodie Erin Rees: $945.48

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Claims
The tenants filed their application on 22 January 2024. The tenants seek: a. repayment of their bond b. exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre
The landlords filed their application on 6 February 2024. They seek compensation for: a. damage to a kitchen benchtop b. damage to a woolshed roller door c. damage to fencing d. time incurred in attending to damage repair and cleanup.
Although the landlords’ compensation claims total more than the amount of the bond, they only seek payment of the bond to them. Background
The parties entered into an agreement dated 20 May 2023. The agreement records that it is a periodic tenancy.
A bond of $3,000.00 was required and was paid by the tenants
The property is a rural property and the agreement records, “Land 20ha to be kept in respectable and presentable order.”
The landlords decided that they needed to sell the property and gave 90 days’ notice of termination ending 29 January 2024. An earlier end date of 20 December 2023 was then negotiated.
The parties had intended that the tenants be able to continue grazing the land after termination of the tenancy on a week by week basis for $350.00 per week (“the grazing agreement”). The parties were unable to agree terms for that continuing arrangement. The landlord proposed that $1,600.00 of the bond be released to the tenants and that $1,400.00 be held as a bond for the grazing agreement. The tenants wanted the whole of their bond returned.
The tenants vacated the dwelling on 20 December 2023. They returned possession of the land to the landlords in January 2024, after the negotiations for the grazing agreement proved unfruitful.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this dispute?

There is no doubt that the parties agreed terms for a tenancy of residential premises. Unusually though, the agreement encompasses a significant area of land as well as the dwelling.
Under s.5(1)(b), the RTA does not apply, “where the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other similar purposes.”
The evidence is that the tenants used the land for commercial purposes, providing grazing and rehoming for horses. However, the tenants both also work away from the property and their use of the land for that purpose did not generate a substantial part of their income.
I therefore find that the exclusion in s.5(1)(b) does not apply.
Even if it did, s.8 RTA allows parties to an excluded tenancy to, “....agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree.”
The parties signed an agreement on terms which specifically apply the provisions of the RTA. Even if the tenancy was excluded under s.5, that would be effective to bring their agreement under the RTA and within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction Bond
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.
There is no dispute that: a. the landlords were not aware of their obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; and b. the bond was not lodged until 12 January 2024, after the tenancy had ended.
I find that by failing to lodge the tenants’ bond as required by the RTA, the landlords 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.
In that regard I note that it is the act itself (ie. not lodging the bond) that must be intentional, not an intention to act unlawfully.
I find that the landlords’ motivation in not lodging the bond was due to their ignorance of the legal requirement to do so. I take into account that once the landlords became aware of their oversight, the bond was lodged, even though they believed they had an entitlement to compensation from the bond.
The tenants have suffered no quantifiable loss as the bond is now with the Bond Centre pending determination of the parties’ dispute.
There is however a public interest in landlords being aware of and meeting such fundamental obligations and I consider it just to make a modest award of exemplary damages.

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.
I find that because this tenancy specifically encompassed the 20ha of land on which the dwelling was situated, that obligation and tenants’ obligations with regard to damage, apply to the land and improvements as well as to the dwelling.
The final inspection was done on 20 December 2023. The landlords’ claim and correspondence with the tenants after the inspection, include concerns by the landlords about the state that house had been left in.
However, the evidence provided by the landlords does not prove that the tenants breached their obligation to leave the house reasonably clean and tidy. I note too that after the final inspection had been completed, the landlord offered to refund to the tenants their bond, less the $1,400.00, proposed to be held as a bond for the grazing agreement.
That being so, I do not find it proved that the landlords are entitled to compensation.
In terms of the curtilage and land, it is more difficult to assess what constitutes a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Photographs provided by the landlord do show effects of the use of dyed spray. They show some areas, previously mowed, that were significantly overgrown and unweeded gardens.
I am satisfied that in those respects the tenants breached their obligation to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlords have not provided evidence of an out of pocket expense incurred to remedy that breach, but I accept that some compensation is due to the landlords for their time in doing work that ought to have been done by the tenants.
The landlords are not entitled to be compensated at the $300.00 hourly rate equal to time charged for their professional work – only to what it would reasonably cost to have the work done. In the absence of evidence proving an actual cost, the assessment of fair compensation must necessarily be conservative and must only relate to proven breaches.
My assessment is that evidence shows the need for 15 hours work to bring the grounds to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Compensation for that work at $60.00 per hour is reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for 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. Kitchen Benchtop
Photographs provided by the landlord show damage to the kitchen benchtop.
However, I again note that after the final inspection the landlords agreed to refund the bond, less a retention for the ongoing grazing agreement, indicating no intention to claim compensation for that damage.
More fundamentally, the property is to be sold and it is not the landlords’ intention to have the benchtop repaired or replaced before the sale. That being so, there is no evidence of any loss having been incurred by the landlords.
That claim for compensation must be declined. Woolshed Door
Photographs provided by the landlords show the large sliding woolshed door lying on the ground in front of it.
The tenants say that they were unaware of the door having come off its rails because they did not use the woolshed and have no idea how it happened. Their view is that it must have happened as a result of a weather event.
The landlords’ evidence, which I accept, is that they will be required to reinstate the door before the property is sold. They have provided a quote for the work of $2,172.58 to “Repair wool shed door, lift into place with hi-ab truck, replace door rollers and straighten roller track”
I am satisfied that the door came off its rails during the tenancy. There is though no evidence of the likely cause of the door coming off. I do not therefore find it proved that the cause was more likely than not to have been careless or intentional damage on the tenants’ part (see s.49B(2)) rather than weather related, which would be wear and tear, outside the tenants’ responsibility.
I do consider it more likely than not that the tenants were aware of the door having come off its rails. They therefore breached their obligation under s.40(1)(d) to, “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”
However, that breach did not create the need to have the door rehung. There is no evidence that the cost of rehanging the door is greater because the tenants did not inform the landlords that it come off its rail.
That compensation claim is declined. Fencing
Photographs show that horses grazing the property during the tenancy caused significant damage to posts and rails on the property.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants must therefore compensate the landlords for the loss caused.
That is damage the landlords will need to have repaired before sale of the property so will be an actual loss. The landlords have provided a quote for the repair work for $1,454.52. I am satisfied that the quote represents the amount of the loss the landlords will incur, which they should be compensated for.
Each party has had claims upheld and no order is made with regard to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786983 — Property damage at 838 Mangleton Road, Kereru, RD 1, Hastings 4171

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786983 — Property damage at 838 Mangleton Road, Kereru, RD 1, Hastings 4171

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this dispute?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this dispute?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?