What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4791957 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4791957?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791957?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10297831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4791957 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4791957?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791957?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10297831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4791957 — Cleanliness

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The parties entered into an arrangement for [Tenant 1] to rent the premises for a short term from 31 July to 31 August 2023. The period may have been extended if the premises were suitable for [Tenant 1]’s family while their own home was being renovated.
Both parties attended a hearing by telephone on 9 April 2024 to determine jurisdiction. Following that hearing, I found that the arrangement between these parties is a residential tenancy, and this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The substantive applications were heard at an in-person hearing on 2 May 2024. Both parties attended that hearing.
The landlord offers holiday accommodation and short-term rentals. [Tenant 1] made an enquiry for accommodation on 25 July 2023. The landlord provided some options. By email on 27 July 2023, [Tenant 1] asked the landlord to “lock in” the reservation for this property.
The landlord sent a confirmation web link with pricing, cancellation policy and the agreement. [Tenant 1] visited the property and signed the agreement through its online portal on 27 July 2023.
On 29 July 2023, the landlord set pre-arrival information by email. [Tenant 2] replied by email on 30 July advising that she is chemical sensitive and asked for any diffusers to be removed from the property.
[The landlord’s representative] visited the property on Monday 31 July 2023. She ensured that all diffusers had been removed. The property had been cleaned before the landlord was advised of [Tenant 2]’s sensitivity to chemicals, so [The landlord’s representative] opened the windows for airing. [The landlord’s representative] met [Tenant 2] at the property to welcome her. There is no evidence of any issues being raised at that time.
[Tenant 2] sent an email to [The landlord’s representative] at 9:43 pm on 31 July recording her dissatisfaction with the property. She said that she had pulled back her bed to look at the mattress and it was unacceptable. She also referred to concerns with the shower drain and dirty grout in the shower. She noted that she would not be available to discuss issues until mid-afternoon the next day. At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] advised that some shower tiles had been regrouted with a mismatched colour, but her evidence was that the shower was clean.
[Tenant 2] then sent a text to [The landlord’s representative] at 10:20pm asking whether she had received the email. [Tenant 2] noted that the bathroom smelled of sewerage and bleach and that the bed was disgusting. The text had photographs attached which show that the mattress protector was not new and that there was dust under a bed. In evidence at the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] acknowledged that there was historical marking on the mattress protectors but said they were clean. She also recorded that the bedding is sterilised and laundered by a commercial laundry.
At 10:45pm, [Tenant 2] phoned [The landlord’s representative]. [Tenant 2] did not attend the hearing to give evidence. She provided a written statement to the Tribunal which records that the property was unacceptable. She also said that she told [The landlord’s representative] during the phone call that they would be “out” of the property the following day and that she expected [The landlord’s representative] to find her alternative accommodation. [Tenant 2] also claims that [The landlord’s representative] told her that the landlord would give a full refund the following morning.
[The landlord’s representative] disputes that she offered a full refund. She said that she acknowledged the need to remedy any issues and said that she would send cleaners back to the property.
[Tenant 1] sent a message to the landlord through its portal the next morning noting that “there seems to be a few issues” but said that [Tenant 2] would be in touch with the landlord as soon as she could to discuss.
[The landlord’s representative] contacted [Tenant 2] by text at 1:47pm on 1 August 2023 advising that cleaners were on standby when [Tenant 2] was ready. [Tenant 2] replied by asking [The landlord’s representative] to meet her at the property.
[The landlord’s representative] was not available to attend the property but sent the landlord’s head housekeeper with new mattress protectors and a cleaner. She said that she would be available later that day. [Tenant 2] replied that she was hoping the parties could sort out alternative accommodation for the next two nights and said that the bed situation at the premises was not suitable. The landlord provided a suggestion for alternative premises but noted that it was not available until 10 August 2023. [Tenant 2] replied at 5:55pm stating that the premises were not suitable and that they had moved out. The reason given was the “terrible beds and dirty bed linen”. [Tenant 2] advised that she had secured accommodation for the next two nights but would like to talk to the landlord about alternative options.
Over the next few days, the parties considered alternative accommodation options. None of the options which the landlord had available were suitable to [Tenant 2].
On 7 August, [Tenant 1] sent a message on the landlord’s portal. He said that he managed to sort accommodation for the next 4 to 6 weeks and requested a refund of the rent paid as he was not totally sure if it would be needed. That is the earliest written record referring to a refund.
The landlord replied to that message by email to [Tenant 2], copied to [Tenant 1]. The email recorded that the best solution would be for [The tenant/s] to move back to these premises. The landlord noted that [Tenant 1] had not raised any issues when he viewed the premises and reiterated that cleaning issues were attended to promptly and that new mattress protectors were provided. The email also recorded a refund was not possible.
[Tenant 1] then called the landlord. Another representative of the landlord followed up the call with an email recording that a refund was not available. The email also reiterates that any concerns were addressed promptly but notes that [The tenant/s] had now raised new issues with the property.
[Tenant 1] then contacted [The landlord’s representative] by email. This is the first email or record suggesting that [The landlord’s representative] had offered a refund during the 31 July telephone call. The email also lists new allegations regarding the condition of the property including gas being left on, a fan in the bathroom not working and exterior door locks failing. The email concludes by stating that a full refund must be received by the following day.
[The landlord’s representative] replied by recording that the landlord acted immediately to resolve issues and by offering alternative accommodation (with all suggestions being declined). [The landlord’s representative] repeated that the funds paid would not be refunded but said that the landlord would not seek the balance of the rent owing. She noted that that amounted to a 50% refund of the one month booking that had been cancelled after one night.
It became clear to the parties that they could not resolve issues between themselves. [Tenant 1] made an application to the Disputes Tribunal. The parties were referred to this Tribunal to decide on jurisdiction. I found that the arrangement between these parties is a residential tenancy, as such the parties have the rights and obligations set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[Tenant 1] claimed full reimbursement of two weeks rent paid. He also claimed compensation of $5,077.25 for moving/relocation costs incurred in relation to the property not being up to standard or being misrepresented. He did not provide any evidence to support the amounts claimed.
The landlord claimed $5,194.02 being the rent payable for the rest of the tenancy.
Under s45 Residential Tenancies Act, the landlord was obliged to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. That is an objective standard. I have viewed photographs and heard evidence from both parties. Some additional cleaning was required at the start of the tenancy, but not to the extent that meant the premises as a whole were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness. [Tenant 2]’s primary concern seemed to be in relation to the bedding. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the bedding had been commercially laundered and sterilised but that some historical staining was evident. While not desirable, that is easily rectified (which the landlord attempted to do the following day), it does not provide grounds for the tenant to cancel or walk away from the remainder of the fixed term.
At the hearing [Tenant 1] maintained that, in any event, the landlord had offered a full refund and that offer was accepted by [Tenant 2] in the telephone call on 31 July 2023. The evidence did not prove that it is more likely than not that [The landlord’s representative] made any such offer. [The landlord’s representative] said that she did not, and would not, have offered a full refund during a call that late at night, without any further information available to her. The more likely interpretation of the discussion is that [The landlord’s representative] offered to remedy any issues the following morning.
This was a tenancy for a fixed term, to 31 August 2023. The landlord claimed rent for the balance of the term. The tenant is liable for rent to the end of a fixed term or until a new tenancy starts. A new tenancy started on 14 August 2023, for a month. That is the date that [The tenant/s] had paid to. The landlord has not suffered a loss as a result of the early termination of the tenancy.
Both applications are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791957 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791957 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions