What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4812762 about?

This case concerned a cleanliness dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4812762?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812762?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812762?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10520129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4812762 about?

This case concerned a cleanliness dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4812762?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812762?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812762?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10520129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

60 Cook Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812762 — Cleanliness

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person. The landlord also bought a support person and had a court appointed interpreter.
The tenant withdrew any claims about the hole in the wall at the tenancy.
The tenant has applied reimbursement of cleaning costs and internet costs taken from the bond, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, failure to provide a residential tenancy agreement and refund of the bond. Reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy was also sought.
A hearing was held to determine the question of jurisdiction and an order issued by the Tenancy Tribunal on 25 March 2024.The Tribunal found that even though the parties entered into a flat/house sharing agreement at the start of the tenancy the evidence provided by the landlord led the Tribunal to declare that this was a standard tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant, and therefore the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
During the hearing, the landlord continually maintained that this was not a tenancy and was a flatmate/house sharing agreement. A copy of the decision dated 25 March 2024 was provided to him and he was told that the correct procedure to question this decision was to file a rehearing, which he did not do.
The Tribunal continued to hear the claims as filed by the tenant.

Was the bond deposited with the bond centre?

It was not disputed that at the start of the tenancy the tenant paid the landlord $1100.00 being a bond of $880.00 and one weeks rent of $220.00 in advance. The landlord did not deposit the bond at the Bond Centre as he believed that this was not a tenancy. It has been found that this was a residential tenancy.
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 failed to lodge the bond and 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.
Failure to lodge a bond is an intentional act. A bond is the tenant’s money to be held for rent and end of tenancy costs. The landlord, by retaining the bond, had the use of the tenant’s money while they did not. The landlord’s argument that he believed this was a flatmate agreement because that is what the parties signed was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal because they looked at the substance of the agreement and not the label. The landlord cannot avoid his responsibilities by calling the agreement by another name. I find it just to award $300.00 for failing to lodge the bond. Did the landlord provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant ?.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided an agreement in writing, signed and a copy was given to the tenant, but it was not the correct agreement.
The tenant said that the details in the agreement as to start date, bond and rent amounts were correct but it was not a residential tenancy agreement. 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 that 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 landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement, but an agreement was produced. The landlord believed that this was the correct agreement, but this had been found to be incorrect. I find that this was an unlawful act but not intentional and no exemplary damages are awarded.

Was the insurance information provided?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There was no information provided establishing that the tenant had requested the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. This claim is dismissed.

Should the costs claimed by the landlord be reimbursed to the tenant?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v).
The tenant moved out of her room on 22 March 2024,another tenant remained living at the premises.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish from her room.
The landlord then had the room professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at a cost of $270.00.The invoice was dated 23 March 2024,the day after the tenant left the premises.
The landlord held onto the tenant’s bond for 13 weeks until he came back from a business trip so that he could look at the room and decide for himself if the bond should be reimbursed. He decided to withhold the cleaning costs of $207.00 from the tenant’s bond.
The landlord inspected the room upon his return and after it had been professionally cleaned. The photographs provided by the landlord of some cat hair of the carpet and no evidence of fleas, do not justify a claim of $207.00 for a room clean.
The dates of cleaning and checking the room also do not line-up. The landlord then explained that he had paid cash for the clean and the invoice was issued later ,but no date was given.
The evidence provided, and the timeline do not support the cleaning claim. The amount deducted is to be paid to the tenant because the cost was not proven and should be reimbursed to the tenant.
The tenant also sought reimbursement of $90.00 withheld by the landlord to cover her internet and power usage. She gave consent for the landlord to keep this amount from her bond for her share of these costs believing that it would be used to reimburse the remaining tenant.
When the remaining tenant said that he had not received it she paid him $90.00 directly. She believes that she has paid twice.
The tenant agreed for the landlord to withhold the $90.00.This appears to be an issue between flatmates to establish if anyone has been paid twice. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide claims between flatmates. This claim is dismissed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. I find that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore are entitled to it by right.
Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression for the landlord.
Suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying particulars is ordered.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person. The landlord also bought a support person and had a court appointed interpreter.
The tenant withdrew any claims about the hole in the wall at the tenancy.
The tenant has applied reimbursement of cleaning costs and internet costs taken from the bond, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, failure to provide a residential tenancy agreement and refund of the bond. Reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy was also sought.
A hearing was held to determine the question of jurisdiction and an order issued by the Tenancy Tribunal on 25 March 2024.The Tribunal found that even though the parties entered into a flat/house sharing agreement at the start of the tenancy the evidence provided by the landlord led the Tribunal to declare that this was a standard tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant, and therefore the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
During the hearing, the landlord continually maintained that this was not a tenancy and was a flatmate/house sharing agreement. A copy of the decision dated 25 March 2024 was provided to him and he was told that the correct procedure to question this decision was to file a rehearing, which he did not do.
The Tribunal continued to hear the claims as filed by the tenant.

Was the bond deposited with the bond centre?

It was not disputed that at the start of the tenancy the tenant paid the landlord $1100.00 being a bond of $880.00 and one weeks rent of $220.00 in advance. The landlord did not deposit the bond at the Bond Centre as he believed that this was not a tenancy. It has been found that this was a residential tenancy.
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 failed to lodge the bond and 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.
Failure to lodge a bond is an intentional act. A bond is the tenant’s money to be held for rent and end of tenancy costs. The landlord, by retaining the bond, had the use of the tenant’s money while they did not. The landlord’s argument that he believed this was a flatmate agreement because that is what the parties signed was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal because they looked at the substance of the agreement and not the label. The landlord cannot avoid his responsibilities by calling the agreement by another name. I find it just to award $300.00 for failing to lodge the bond. Did the landlord provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant ?.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided an agreement in writing, signed and a copy was given to the tenant, but it was not the correct agreement.
The tenant said that the details in the agreement as to start date, bond and rent amounts were correct but it was not a residential tenancy agreement. 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 that 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 landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement, but an agreement was produced. The landlord believed that this was the correct agreement, but this had been found to be incorrect. I find that this was an unlawful act but not intentional and no exemplary damages are awarded.

Was the insurance information provided?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There was no information provided establishing that the tenant had requested the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. This claim is dismissed.

Should the costs claimed by the landlord be reimbursed to the tenant?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v).
The tenant moved out of her room on 22 March 2024,another tenant remained living at the premises.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish from her room.
The landlord then had the room professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at a cost of $270.00.The invoice was dated 23 March 2024,the day after the tenant left the premises.
The landlord held onto the tenant’s bond for 13 weeks until he came back from a business trip so that he could look at the room and decide for himself if the bond should be reimbursed. He decided to withhold the cleaning costs of $207.00 from the tenant’s bond.
The landlord inspected the room upon his return and after it had been professionally cleaned. The photographs provided by the landlord of some cat hair of the carpet and no evidence of fleas, do not justify a claim of $207.00 for a room clean.
The dates of cleaning and checking the room also do not line-up. The landlord then explained that he had paid cash for the clean and the invoice was issued later ,but no date was given.
The evidence provided, and the timeline do not support the cleaning claim. The amount deducted is to be paid to the tenant because the cost was not proven and should be reimbursed to the tenant.
The tenant also sought reimbursement of $90.00 withheld by the landlord to cover her internet and power usage. She gave consent for the landlord to keep this amount from her bond for her share of these costs believing that it would be used to reimburse the remaining tenant.
When the remaining tenant said that he had not received it she paid him $90.00 directly. She believes that she has paid twice.
The tenant agreed for the landlord to withhold the $90.00.This appears to be an issue between flatmates to establish if anyone has been paid twice. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide claims between flatmates. This claim is dismissed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. I find that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore are entitled to it by right.
Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression for the landlord.
Suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying particulars is ordered.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812762 — Cleanliness at 60 Cook Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812762 — Cleanliness at 60 Cook Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the bond deposited with the bond centre?

Was the insurance information provided?

Should the costs claimed by the landlord be reimbursed to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the bond deposited with the bond centre?

Was the insurance information provided?

Should the costs claimed by the landlord be reimbursed to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions