What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792958 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4792958?

Air Conditioning Diverter: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Drawer Handle: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792958?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792958?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10139799-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792958 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4792958?

Air Conditioning Diverter: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Drawer Handle: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792958?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792958?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10139799-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 1017 Tomoana Road, Mahora, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4792958 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792958 — net $1,235.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$175.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$95.00		Carpet Cleaning
Air conditioning diverter	$50.00		Air conditioning diverter
Garden work	$100.00		Garden work
Kitchen drawer handle	$45.00		Kitchen drawer handle
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$465.00	$20.44
Net award		$1,235.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,235.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The trustee] as Trustee for [The landlord/s] must pay [the Tenant/s] $1,235.44, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation for what she says is the excess bond paid to the landlord.
The tenant also asks compensation for counselling costs and for distress for the mental and emotional harm said to have been caused by the landlord’s actions. Background
The tenancy began on 1 March 2021. In November 2022 a former partner of the tenant broke into the premises in circumstances where the tenant justifiably believed that she was at risk of harm from him. The tenant heard him breaking into the property, escaped and immediately rang at the police. While at the property the former partner caused significant damage, breaking the garage door to gain entry, punching holes in walls and doors and the shower lining.
The tenant feared for her safety and so asked the landlord if she could end the tendency on short notice. Neither the tenant nor the landlord were then aware of the provisions of section 56B allowing a tenant who is a victim of family violence to withdraw from a tenancy.
Both the tenant and the landlord we are aware that a friend of the tenant, who had introduced the tenant to the tenancy, was looking for somewhere to live and was happy to take a tenancy of the premises.
The tenant brought family and friends to help her clean the premises. Believing that she was responsible for the damage her former partner had caused, the tenant signed the bond release form directing the bond to be paid to the landlord. The landlord has received the bond of $1680.00.
The tenant subsequently received advice that if a landlord made an insurance claim only the insurance excess could be claimed from the tenant and that insurance would cover all of the landlord’s losses. This claim was then filed several months after the end of the tenancy.
There is a legitimate question about whether the Tribunal can review how the bond has been applied when it has been paid to the landlord under a bond release form signed by the tenant.
In my view s.11 applies to prevent that agreement, if inconsistent with the tenant’s rights under the RTA, being given effect.

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.
The tenant contacted the landlord shortly after she had moved out asking that the landlord arrange for the carpets to be commercially cleaned and to take the payment for it from the bond.
The landlord did so and has paid $95.00 for the carpet cleaning as proved by the invoice provided. The tenant does not dispute that she should reimburse the landlord for that cost.
Similarly, the tenant does not dispute that while she kept the lawns mowed, she was not able to keep the gardens weeded and I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the cost of having that work done after the tenancy ended.
Again, the cost is proved by an invoice provided.
The landlord played to $280.00 to have the premises cleaned after the tenancy he ended. The tenant is somewhat upset at the suggestion that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, having made a considerable effort to make sure they were left in that condition.
The evidence provided by the landlord however persuades me while for the most part the premises were left clean and tidy, in some areas like the venetian blinds and stove in particular, additional cleaning was required.
The landlord confirms that no additional cleaning work was undertaken or paid for before a new tenancy started. The tenant's obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not immediately ready for a new tenancy to begin and I have taken that into account in the compensation approved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Most of the damage for which the landlord sought compensation from the bond was caused when the tenant’s former partner broke into the premises.
The landlord brought an insurance claim for that damage. The insurer declined the claims for malicious damage as they were not covered by the policy. The landlord was however able to have a claim accepted for repair of the garage roller door, so only the insurance excess was claimed in respect of that damage.
A tenant is not liable for damage to the premises except in the circumstances provided for in s.49B. The relevant circumstance here is, in terms of s.49B(1)(a) where, “......the destruction or damage was intentionally done or caused by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41.”
It is clear that the damage caused by the tenant’s former partner occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The onus is therefore on the tenant to prove that she is not responsible.
Section 41 reads: “Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.”
I am persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that her former partner was not and had not been an occupant of the premises. He was not in the premises with the tenant’s permission but broke in. For the purposes of subsection (2) it cannot be presumed that the tenant permitted her former partner to be there, given that she escaped from the premises on hearing him trying to enter and immediately rang the police.
That interpretation of the events is reinforced by the tenant having immediately approached the landlord to ask to end the tenancy on short notice and thereafter leaving the area for her own safety.
For the purposes of section 41, I find that the actions her former partner in intentionally causing damage to the premises, were not actions the tenant was responsible for. The damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant herself. I therefore find that the damage is not damage the tenant was liable for under s.49B(1)(a) and she was therefore not required to compensate the landlord for it.
That assessment applies to the damage to the roller door, garage door lock, walls, doors and shower lining.
A diverter on the air conditioning unit was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant does not know how the damage occurred, but it was not damaged during the intrusion referred to above.
I find it proved that the damage was more beyond normal wear and tear. That means there is an obligation on the tenant to provide evidence showing it is not damage she was responsible for. As the tenant is unable to provide any evidence as to its cause, I find that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the repair cost.
The landlord accepts that the air conditioning unit is old but is still functional. I accept that the amount of the landlord’s compensation claim is reasonable.
The same analysis applies to a broken drawer handle.

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for mental/ emotional harm?

Some actions by landlords or tenants in breaching their obligations under the RTA are characterised as unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Those damages are not compensatory in nature but designed to punish intentionally wrongful behaviour.
I see no evidence of such behaviour on the landlord’s part.
As I view the evidence, both parties dealt considerately with a difficult situation. The tenant, in wanting to end the tenancy early was considerate of minimising the impact for the landlord and so arranged a replacement tenancy.
The landlord for his part readily accepted short notice from the tenant and was considerate of the tenant’s position in quantifying the compensation claims. Both parties were operating under the same expectation that the tenant was responsible for the damage caused by her former partner and the bond refund form was signed by the tenant on that basis.
The fact that the Tribunal has determined the tenant was not liable for that damage does not warrant any punitive sanction on the landlord.
The advice given to the tenant that making an insurance claim prevented compensation for other losses being sought by the landlord, is simply not correct.
The tenant’s claim for compensation/ exemplary damages is declined.
Because [the Tenant/s] has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792958 — net $1,235.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$175.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$95.00		Carpet Cleaning
Air conditioning diverter	$50.00		Air conditioning diverter
Garden work	$100.00		Garden work
Kitchen drawer handle	$45.00		Kitchen drawer handle
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$465.00	$20.44
Net award		$1,235.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,235.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The trustee] as Trustee for [The landlord/s] must pay [the Tenant/s] $1,235.44, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation for what she says is the excess bond paid to the landlord.
The tenant also asks compensation for counselling costs and for distress for the mental and emotional harm said to have been caused by the landlord’s actions. Background
The tenancy began on 1 March 2021. In November 2022 a former partner of the tenant broke into the premises in circumstances where the tenant justifiably believed that she was at risk of harm from him. The tenant heard him breaking into the property, escaped and immediately rang at the police. While at the property the former partner caused significant damage, breaking the garage door to gain entry, punching holes in walls and doors and the shower lining.
The tenant feared for her safety and so asked the landlord if she could end the tendency on short notice. Neither the tenant nor the landlord were then aware of the provisions of section 56B allowing a tenant who is a victim of family violence to withdraw from a tenancy.
Both the tenant and the landlord we are aware that a friend of the tenant, who had introduced the tenant to the tenancy, was looking for somewhere to live and was happy to take a tenancy of the premises.
The tenant brought family and friends to help her clean the premises. Believing that she was responsible for the damage her former partner had caused, the tenant signed the bond release form directing the bond to be paid to the landlord. The landlord has received the bond of $1680.00.
The tenant subsequently received advice that if a landlord made an insurance claim only the insurance excess could be claimed from the tenant and that insurance would cover all of the landlord’s losses. This claim was then filed several months after the end of the tenancy.
There is a legitimate question about whether the Tribunal can review how the bond has been applied when it has been paid to the landlord under a bond release form signed by the tenant.
In my view s.11 applies to prevent that agreement, if inconsistent with the tenant’s rights under the RTA, being given effect.

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.
The tenant contacted the landlord shortly after she had moved out asking that the landlord arrange for the carpets to be commercially cleaned and to take the payment for it from the bond.
The landlord did so and has paid $95.00 for the carpet cleaning as proved by the invoice provided. The tenant does not dispute that she should reimburse the landlord for that cost.
Similarly, the tenant does not dispute that while she kept the lawns mowed, she was not able to keep the gardens weeded and I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the cost of having that work done after the tenancy ended.
Again, the cost is proved by an invoice provided.
The landlord played to $280.00 to have the premises cleaned after the tenancy he ended. The tenant is somewhat upset at the suggestion that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, having made a considerable effort to make sure they were left in that condition.
The evidence provided by the landlord however persuades me while for the most part the premises were left clean and tidy, in some areas like the venetian blinds and stove in particular, additional cleaning was required.
The landlord confirms that no additional cleaning work was undertaken or paid for before a new tenancy started. The tenant's obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not immediately ready for a new tenancy to begin and I have taken that into account in the compensation approved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Most of the damage for which the landlord sought compensation from the bond was caused when the tenant’s former partner broke into the premises.
The landlord brought an insurance claim for that damage. The insurer declined the claims for malicious damage as they were not covered by the policy. The landlord was however able to have a claim accepted for repair of the garage roller door, so only the insurance excess was claimed in respect of that damage.
A tenant is not liable for damage to the premises except in the circumstances provided for in s.49B. The relevant circumstance here is, in terms of s.49B(1)(a) where, “......the destruction or damage was intentionally done or caused by the tenant or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible under section 41.”
It is clear that the damage caused by the tenant’s former partner occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The onus is therefore on the tenant to prove that she is not responsible.
Section 41 reads: “Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.”
I am persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that her former partner was not and had not been an occupant of the premises. He was not in the premises with the tenant’s permission but broke in. For the purposes of subsection (2) it cannot be presumed that the tenant permitted her former partner to be there, given that she escaped from the premises on hearing him trying to enter and immediately rang the police.
That interpretation of the events is reinforced by the tenant having immediately approached the landlord to ask to end the tenancy on short notice and thereafter leaving the area for her own safety.
For the purposes of section 41, I find that the actions her former partner in intentionally causing damage to the premises, were not actions the tenant was responsible for. The damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant herself. I therefore find that the damage is not damage the tenant was liable for under s.49B(1)(a) and she was therefore not required to compensate the landlord for it.
That assessment applies to the damage to the roller door, garage door lock, walls, doors and shower lining.
A diverter on the air conditioning unit was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant does not know how the damage occurred, but it was not damaged during the intrusion referred to above.
I find it proved that the damage was more beyond normal wear and tear. That means there is an obligation on the tenant to provide evidence showing it is not damage she was responsible for. As the tenant is unable to provide any evidence as to its cause, I find that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the repair cost.
The landlord accepts that the air conditioning unit is old but is still functional. I accept that the amount of the landlord’s compensation claim is reasonable.
The same analysis applies to a broken drawer handle.

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for mental/ emotional harm?

Some actions by landlords or tenants in breaching their obligations under the RTA are characterised as unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Those damages are not compensatory in nature but designed to punish intentionally wrongful behaviour.
I see no evidence of such behaviour on the landlord’s part.
As I view the evidence, both parties dealt considerately with a difficult situation. The tenant, in wanting to end the tenancy early was considerate of minimising the impact for the landlord and so arranged a replacement tenancy.
The landlord for his part readily accepted short notice from the tenant and was considerate of the tenant’s position in quantifying the compensation claims. Both parties were operating under the same expectation that the tenant was responsible for the damage caused by her former partner and the bond refund form was signed by the tenant on that basis.
The fact that the Tribunal has determined the tenant was not liable for that damage does not warrant any punitive sanction on the landlord.
The advice given to the tenant that making an insurance claim prevented compensation for other losses being sought by the landlord, is simply not correct.
The tenant’s claim for compensation/ exemplary damages is declined.
Because [the Tenant/s] has had claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792958 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 1017 Tomoana Road, Mahora, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792958 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 1017 Tomoana Road, Mahora, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for mental/ emotional harm?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for mental/ emotional harm?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions