What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4793979 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 4793979?

Cleaning: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $175.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4793979?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4793979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10374755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4793979 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 4793979?

Cleaning: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $175.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4793979?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4793979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10374755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 St Heliers Court, Clyde Hill, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4793979 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

9 St Heliers Court, Clyde Hill, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4793979 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4793979 — net $505.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/1/2024	$175.71	Rent arrears to 2/1/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$330.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$505.71
Bond	$860.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$505.71

Claims and awards for application 4793979 — net $505.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2/1/2024

Amount: $175.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2/1/2024

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $330.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Net award

Landlord $505.71

Bond

Landlord $860.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $505.71

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Tenant is liable to pay Purple Properties Limited as agent for Mitchell Enterprises $505.71 from the bond calculated as per the table below:
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $290.00 is dismissed.
The application by the tenant for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Purple Properties Limited - As Agent For Mitchell Enterprises: $505.71 [The tenant/s]: $354.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation, refund of the balance of the bond and the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for harassment, failure to maintain the premises due to rodents and unlawful entry.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 12/12/2022 to 22/12/2023 at $510.00 rent per week.
The tenant vacated on 3/1/2024. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears to 3/1/2024 of $248.57, after refund of part of the bond of $$1,180.00.
While not disputing there were arrears, the tenant believed these were at least $100.00 less than claimed.
After carefully looking at the rent schedule provided by the landlord and the bank statements from the tenant, I consider the landlord has correctly taken into account all the payments made by the tenant throughout the tenancy.
However, I have deducted one days rent from the amount sought by the landlord because the landlord re-let the premises on the same day the tenant was to leave.
A landlord cannot charge two different tenants for rent for the same unless the start and end times of each tenancy are specifically agreed to in the tenancy agreement.

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants 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 landlord sought compensation of $570.00 as follows: a. $330.00 for carpet cleaning, b. $240.00 for cleaning
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit photographs and invoices.
On the other hand, the tenant submitted they had cleaned the premises but did agree they were unable to remove a mark in a bedroom carpet.
I consider the landlord is estopped from claiming the cleaning costs. This is because of the advice to the tenants that new tenants were moving in later on the same day the tenants were moving out.
This advice effectively meant the tenant was unable to complete the cleaning required.
However, I have allowed the carpet cleaning because of the evidence of the tenant and the carpet cleaner about carpet stains in what were new carpets at the beginning of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for the 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.
The landlord sought compensation of $50.00 to replace a damaged kitchen cupboard door.
The tenant suggested they were unaware of any damage to the door.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I find that damage was caused to a kitchen cupboard door during the term of the tenancy, but that the damage is fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation fails. Tenant claim

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant submitted that the landlord did not deal with them respectfully or professionally during the tenancy, especially about the rodent problems and inspections.
As a result, the tenant suggested her health suffered.
In response the submitted that she tried to work with the tenant, especially over the issue of rent arrears.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This is a civil jurisdiction and unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I cannot take the personal circumstances of either party into account when determining a matter.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord engaged in a particular pattern of behaviour designed to “trouble, worry or distress” the tenant.
The landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations?

The tenant suggested that there was a rat problem in the premises from the beginning of the tenancy.
In support of the claim the tenant provided photographs and correspondence between the parties.
On the other hand, the landlord disagreed there was a rodent problem, although rat traps had been set by a contractor for the landlord when the tenant first complained.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
For a claim to be successful the applicant, in this claim the tenant, needs to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that it is more probable than not that there is a rodent problem in the premises for which the landlord is responsible.
Mice and indeed rats are not uncommon in urban environments and both landlords and tenants need to take appropriate measures to avoid the problem getting out of hand.
In this instance I accept the evidence of the landlord that there had been no evidence of rodents while the premises were being renovated and when they became aware of the issue traps were set.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

The tenant submitted that on several occasions the landlord entered the premises for inspections and viewings without giving the appropriate notice.
A witness for the tenant confirmed that when she was at the premises on 14/12/2023 the landlord brough people for a viewing, which the tenant told her they knew nothing about.
In response the landlord submitted that she always provided notice to the tenant before any inspections or viewings.
Further the landlord suggested that if she turned up at the property to be told no notice had been received, the tenant never refused the inspection or viewing.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs and maintenance and viewings. See section 48(1), (2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The emails provided by the parties show prior notice of viewings and inspections.
As the landlord has not committed any unlawful acts, the claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because I consider the applications effectively cancel each other out.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.
Although the tenant has been largely unsuccessful, I have granted suppression pursuant to section 95A because I consider it is in the interests of the tenant to do so.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4793979 — net $505.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/1/2024	$175.71	Rent arrears to 2/1/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$330.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$505.71
Bond	$860.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$505.71

Claims and awards for application 4793979 — net $505.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2/1/2024

Amount: $175.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2/1/2024

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $330.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Net award

Landlord $505.71

Bond

Landlord $860.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $505.71

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Tenant is liable to pay Purple Properties Limited as agent for Mitchell Enterprises $505.71 from the bond calculated as per the table below:
The application by the landlord for further compensation of $290.00 is dismissed.
The application by the tenant for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Purple Properties Limited - As Agent For Mitchell Enterprises: $505.71 [The tenant/s]: $354.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation, refund of the balance of the bond and the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for harassment, failure to maintain the premises due to rodents and unlawful entry.
This was a fixed term tenancy from 12/12/2022 to 22/12/2023 at $510.00 rent per week.
The tenant vacated on 3/1/2024. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears to 3/1/2024 of $248.57, after refund of part of the bond of $$1,180.00.
While not disputing there were arrears, the tenant believed these were at least $100.00 less than claimed.
After carefully looking at the rent schedule provided by the landlord and the bank statements from the tenant, I consider the landlord has correctly taken into account all the payments made by the tenant throughout the tenancy.
However, I have deducted one days rent from the amount sought by the landlord because the landlord re-let the premises on the same day the tenant was to leave.
A landlord cannot charge two different tenants for rent for the same unless the start and end times of each tenancy are specifically agreed to in the tenancy agreement.

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

At the end of the tenancy tenants 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 landlord sought compensation of $570.00 as follows: a. $330.00 for carpet cleaning, b. $240.00 for cleaning
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit photographs and invoices.
On the other hand, the tenant submitted they had cleaned the premises but did agree they were unable to remove a mark in a bedroom carpet.
I consider the landlord is estopped from claiming the cleaning costs. This is because of the advice to the tenants that new tenants were moving in later on the same day the tenants were moving out.
This advice effectively meant the tenant was unable to complete the cleaning required.
However, I have allowed the carpet cleaning because of the evidence of the tenant and the carpet cleaner about carpet stains in what were new carpets at the beginning of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for the 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.
The landlord sought compensation of $50.00 to replace a damaged kitchen cupboard door.
The tenant suggested they were unaware of any damage to the door.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I find that damage was caused to a kitchen cupboard door during the term of the tenancy, but that the damage is fair wear and tear.
The claim for compensation fails. Tenant claim

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant submitted that the landlord did not deal with them respectfully or professionally during the tenancy, especially about the rodent problems and inspections.
As a result, the tenant suggested her health suffered.
In response the submitted that she tried to work with the tenant, especially over the issue of rent arrears.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This is a civil jurisdiction and unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I cannot take the personal circumstances of either party into account when determining a matter.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that the landlord engaged in a particular pattern of behaviour designed to “trouble, worry or distress” the tenant.
The landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations?

The tenant suggested that there was a rat problem in the premises from the beginning of the tenancy.
In support of the claim the tenant provided photographs and correspondence between the parties.
On the other hand, the landlord disagreed there was a rodent problem, although rat traps had been set by a contractor for the landlord when the tenant first complained.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations 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.
For a claim to be successful the applicant, in this claim the tenant, needs to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I am not persuaded by the evidence that it is more probable than not that there is a rodent problem in the premises for which the landlord is responsible.
Mice and indeed rats are not uncommon in urban environments and both landlords and tenants need to take appropriate measures to avoid the problem getting out of hand.
In this instance I accept the evidence of the landlord that there had been no evidence of rodents while the premises were being renovated and when they became aware of the issue traps were set.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

The tenant submitted that on several occasions the landlord entered the premises for inspections and viewings without giving the appropriate notice.
A witness for the tenant confirmed that when she was at the premises on 14/12/2023 the landlord brough people for a viewing, which the tenant told her they knew nothing about.
In response the landlord submitted that she always provided notice to the tenant before any inspections or viewings.
Further the landlord suggested that if she turned up at the property to be told no notice had been received, the tenant never refused the inspection or viewing.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs and maintenance and viewings. See section 48(1), (2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The emails provided by the parties show prior notice of viewings and inspections.
As the landlord has not committed any unlawful acts, the claim for exemplary damages fails.
No filing fees are awarded because I consider the applications effectively cancel each other out.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.
Although the tenant has been largely unsuccessful, I have granted suppression pursuant to section 95A because I consider it is in the interests of the tenant to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4793979 — Cleanliness at 9 St Heliers Court, Clyde Hill, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4793979 — Cleanliness at 9 St Heliers Court, Clyde Hill, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions