What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4817857 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 4817857?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $437.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817857?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11172928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4817857 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 4817857?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $437.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817857?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11172928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817857 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817857 — 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 4817857 — net $1,258.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$437.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,258.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,258.30

Claims and awards for application 4817857 — net $1,258.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $437.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $800.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,258.30

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,258.30

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee 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/s] must pay Peter Kennedy As Trustee For The KGH Trust As Agent For Executive Property Wellington Limited $1,258.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was filed on his behalf by his daughter, Ms Moore, and she was permitted to represent the tenant at the hearing. The Tribunal has a discretion to allow representation in appropriate circumstances. See section 93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond, breaching maintenance obligations, failing to install a smoke alarm and compensation for breaching obligations on termination of the tenancy and quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has filed a cross claim for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning and damage caused during the tenancy, and exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises when the tenancy terminated.
This tenancy commenced on 21 September 2015. It was terminated on 22 December 2023 following service of a 90-day termination notice served on the tenant by the landlord under section 51(2)(f) RTA. The notice was given on the grounds that the landlord wished to commence extensive refurbishment of the premises and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was done. The tenant remained in possession after the termination date and the landlord applied to the Tribunal under application 4780099 for a possession order which was granted with effect on 5 February 2024. Unfortunately, the tenant did not comply with the possession order and the landlord applied to the District Court to enforce the possession order. This resulted in the Bailiff evicting the tenant from the premises on 19 February 2024.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Ms Moore claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA. 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 RTA.
The tenancy was arranged through a letting manager. While the tenancy agreement provided for a bond payment of $1,520 and the first week’s rent in advance, the landlord says that the bond portion was not paid before the tenancy started. Mr Kennedy provided bank records showing the landlord received an initial payment of $380 on 23 September 2015 with a reference to the tenancy address and “rent.” This payment covered the first week’s rent. However, no rent nor any other money was paid for the next 5 weeks. On 2 November 2015, the landlord received a deposit of $2,280 with the reference “288b Morti”. Mr Kennedy says that he rang the tenant to clarify what this payment was for, and they mutually agreed that it be put towards the 5 weeks arrears owed to 1 November 2015 of $1,900 and the current rent due on 2 November 2015 of $380. In that regard, the landlord says no bond was paid or later demanded.
Ms Moore has no evidence to establish that her father paid a bond to the landlord at any stage. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Ms Moore claims that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Ms Moore’s specific claims are: a. The landlord did not provide any approved form of heating in the living room (as required by Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947) until she made a request for heating and a panel heater was installed sometime in 2022. However, she also claims that the panel heater was inadequate; b. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not working when she went to the premises at the end of the tenancy (to clean and collect her father’s belongings) because it did not work when she tried to switch it on; c. There were no working smoking alarms in the premises at the end of the tenancy. She refers to photos taken by her of the premises in which there are no smoke alarms present.
Mr Kennedy’s responses to the above claims are: a. Heating: He believes and has been informed by his electrician that the panel heater installed in 2022 replaced an existing heater. Therefore, the landlord is not in breach of their obligation to provide heating. As this tenancy commenced in 2015, the landlord was not required to comply with Healthy Homes Standards regulations regarding heating and heating capacity until 1 July 2025; b. Extractor fan: The landlord provided a statement from their electrician confirming that all electrical appliances including the extractor fan were operating when he checked them in March 2024, shortly after the tenancy ended; c. Smoke alarms: The landlord refutes the claim and says that the photos taken by Ms Moore do not show the areas in which the smoke alarms had been placed on the hallway ceiling and on the ceilings just inside the entrance to each bedroom. The alarms used were photoelectric Cavius alarms which are described in online literature as one of the smallest, barely visible but effective alarms.
There is insufficient evidence presented by Ms Moore to establish any of the above claims to the required civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. There is insufficient evidence to establish that there was no heater provided until 2022, nor that the panel heater was inadequate. There is no proof that the extractor fan was not working during the tenancy, nor that Ms Moore or her father raised any issue about the extractor fan not working during the tenancy. Finally, the photos Ms Moore presented do not show the areas in which the landlord says the smoke alarms have been placed. Given that they are small, Mr Kennedy suggests That Ms Moore may not have noticed them on her visit to the house. It follows that I dismiss the claims for lack of evidence.

Did the landlord breach any obligations regarding termination and eviction?

Ms Moore says that the landlord did not act in good faith during the termination process and reneged on an agreement reached with her on how to best evict her father as tenant. Her claims and the landlord’s responses may be summarised briefly as follows: a. Mr Kennedy knew the tenant had become unwell with dementia and that Ms Moore should be contacted (as they had previously emailed her about matters), but he did not provide her with a copy of the termination served on her father. The landlord disputes this claim and produced evidence at the hearing that they emailed Ms Moore a copy of the termination notice on 6 October 2023 and she responded to the email on 9 October 2023. The landlord also pointed out that there was no signed authority formally appointing Ms Moore as agent or representative for her father and nor has she been appointed an attorney to act on his behalf under any enduring power of attorney documents or by court orders. Nevertheless, the landlord says that they kept her informed of matters concerning her father; b. Mr Kennedy misled her in their discussions about the reasons for termination advising her that the landlord had to sell properties for financial reasons. However, the landlord later told her that they intended to re-tenant the premises. Therefore, she claims that the landlord misled her about the reasons for terminating the tenancy. She suggests that the termination notice was not genuine. The landlord disputes this and notes that they sent Ms Moore a copy of the termination notice given under section 51(2)(f) RTA. The notice clearly states that the landlord wished to commence extensive refurbishment of the premises and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was done. While there may have been some discussion about selling the premises, that was not the reason given in the notice and the landlord confirmed that the refurbishment work was necessary before they could sell or relet the premises and the work was completed. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the premises have been relet, but sale is still a possibility. c. Because Ms Moore had not been able to secure social housing or other temporary accommodation for her father, she and Mr Kennedy agreed on a plan that her father would need to be evicted by a bailiff. If her father refused, she hoped that Police would be called and transport him to Keneperu dementia unit, where he would receive the care he required rather than become homeless. She says that the landlord agreed to cooperate with the plan and advise her when the bailiff was due. She says that the landlord did not give her advance warning as agreed and contacted her after the bailiff had evicted her father already. Mr Kennedy produced an email advising Ms Moore on 15 February 2024 that the bailiff informed them that the eviction notice had been served on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises by 9.30am on the following Monday (19 February). Mr Kennedy says that he did his best to keep Ms Moore informed but the bailiff could not give him an eviction time and only contacted him afterwards. d. Ms Moore understood that Mr Kennedy was present when the bailiff conducted the eviction and arranged for the tenant to be dropped at the WINZ offices with his suitcases. Mr Kennedy denies this and says he was not present when the bailiff evicted the tenant and was not told about the eviction until after the event. He says he did not make any arrangements to drop the tenant at the WINZ offices. e. Ms Moore alleges that Mr Kennedy told her that he went to the premises the night before the eviction and stood over the tenant while he packed his suitcases. Mr Kennedy categorically denies this and says that while he visited the tenant sometime between 15 February and the eviction date, he stood outside the premises and talked with him. He did not go inside the premises or help the tenant to pack; f. The landlord says that the termination and eviction was a process they entered reluctantly, and they followed the RTA requirements.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to establish that the landlord breached any of their obligations concerning termination of the tenancy and the subsequent eviction. While not specifically claimed by Ms Moore, I do not find any evidence of the landlord giving a notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they were not entitled to do so, which would be a breach of s60AA RTA. I find that they gave a valid notice and complied with the process for termination and eviction in the RTA.
In summary, there is no basis for compensation or exemplary damages regarding the landlord’s actions in terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant. For that reason, the claims are dismissed.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully or breach quiet enjoyment?

Ms Moore claims that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully and/or harassed the tenant by standing over him while he packed the night before the eviction, as detailed in her evidence above. Such actions could be a breach of either s38 or s48 RTA.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
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) RTA.
The landlord denies the allegations and Ms Moore has not provided sufficient evidence to establish any breach of either section 38 or 48. The claim is therefore dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on 19 February 2024, when the tenant was evicted from the premises.

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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as shown in photos of the premises taken after the tenant vacated produced in evidence. While I accept that Ms Moore attended the premises after her father was evicted and completed cleaning work, there were many areas of extensive mould on walls and around window frames and sills that remained. While the landlord intended to complete extensive refurbishment, they say that the mould still had to be further cleaned before repainting work could be done.
The landlord’s cleaning invoice covers some areas of work for which no clear photo evidence was provided. For example, there were no close-up photos to show the oven, rangehood, washing machine and dryer, all of which were items included in the cleaning invoice. Therefore, I have reduced the cleaning claim to $800 which I consider justified based on the photo evidence.

Is the tenant 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.
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. The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $2,250.
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 section 49B(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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: All the carpets were stained and damaged; all the curtains were damaged by mould and all walls, skirtings and window frames and windowsills were damaged by mould and marks. The landlord seeks the costs of replacing carpets and curtains and repainting surfaces.
There was no pre -tenancy inspection report or photos to show the condition of the fixtures and fittings at the start of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that: the carpets were likely installed 2-3 years before the tenancy started, which would make them at least 11-12 years old; the curtains were “fairly new” when the tenancy started which would make them at least 8-9 years old, and the surfaces were last painted 2-3 years before the tenancy started (11-12 years ago). However, there was no evidence to verify the likely age of the items nor photos to show their condition at the start of the tenancy.
I can accept that the carpets, curtains, and painted surfaces show obvious signs of being damaged during the tenancy, other than by fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. However, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the expected life of items in a rental property as follows: Bedroom carpet—10-14 years; Living area carpet—8-12 years; Curtains—8 years; Painted bedroom walls—10-14 years; Painted living area walls—8-12 years.
Given that the landlord cannot prove the age of the items he wishes to replace; cannot prove the condition of those items at the start of the tenancy; and on the landlord’s evidence the items have likely reached the end of their life, I find that the replacement costs must be fully depreciated. Therefore, the claims for the replacement costs of the carpets, curtains and painted surfaces are dismissed.

Has the tenant failed to quit the premises without reasonable excuse?

Peter Kennedy As Trustee For The Kgh Trust As Agent For Executive Property Wellington Limited tenant did not vacate the premises on 22 December 2023, when the tenancy ended as set out in the termination notice. The tenant also failed to give possession on 5 February 2024, after the Tribunal issued a possession order. The landlord was forced to apply for an eviction order from the District Court.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am satisfied based on the medical evidence provided by Ms Moore that the tenant is suffering from several health conditions including dementia. A medical practitioner has certified that he lacks competence to manage his own affairs in relation to property and care and welfare and he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and foresee the consequences of decisions relating to his affairs.
The medical evidence establishes that the tenant would not have understood the termination notice and subsequent Tribunal possession order. Therefore, this provides a reasonable excuse as to why he failed to quit the premises. It follows that there is no basis for considering an award of exemplary damages under s40(3A)(a) and the claim is dismissed.
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. See section 95A RTA.
Neither party applied for suppression. However, I consider that the tenant’s name and identifying details ought to be suppressed given his medical conditions and the fact that he was likely unaware of the proceedings and unable to attend. Publishing the tenant’s details would not be in the Public interest nor in the interests of the tenant.
As the landlord has mostly succeeded in the proceedings, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 4817857 — net $1,258.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$437.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,258.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,258.30

Claims and awards for application 4817857 — net $1,258.30 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $437.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $800.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,258.30

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,258.30

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee 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/s] must pay Peter Kennedy As Trustee For The KGH Trust As Agent For Executive Property Wellington Limited $1,258.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was filed on his behalf by his daughter, Ms Moore, and she was permitted to represent the tenant at the hearing. The Tribunal has a discretion to allow representation in appropriate circumstances. See section 93 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond, breaching maintenance obligations, failing to install a smoke alarm and compensation for breaching obligations on termination of the tenancy and quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has filed a cross claim for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning and damage caused during the tenancy, and exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises when the tenancy terminated.
This tenancy commenced on 21 September 2015. It was terminated on 22 December 2023 following service of a 90-day termination notice served on the tenant by the landlord under section 51(2)(f) RTA. The notice was given on the grounds that the landlord wished to commence extensive refurbishment of the premises and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was done. The tenant remained in possession after the termination date and the landlord applied to the Tribunal under application 4780099 for a possession order which was granted with effect on 5 February 2024. Unfortunately, the tenant did not comply with the possession order and the landlord applied to the District Court to enforce the possession order. This resulted in the Bailiff evicting the tenant from the premises on 19 February 2024.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Ms Moore claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA. 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 RTA.
The tenancy was arranged through a letting manager. While the tenancy agreement provided for a bond payment of $1,520 and the first week’s rent in advance, the landlord says that the bond portion was not paid before the tenancy started. Mr Kennedy provided bank records showing the landlord received an initial payment of $380 on 23 September 2015 with a reference to the tenancy address and “rent.” This payment covered the first week’s rent. However, no rent nor any other money was paid for the next 5 weeks. On 2 November 2015, the landlord received a deposit of $2,280 with the reference “288b Morti”. Mr Kennedy says that he rang the tenant to clarify what this payment was for, and they mutually agreed that it be put towards the 5 weeks arrears owed to 1 November 2015 of $1,900 and the current rent due on 2 November 2015 of $380. In that regard, the landlord says no bond was paid or later demanded.
Ms Moore has no evidence to establish that her father paid a bond to the landlord at any stage. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Ms Moore claims that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA. Ms Moore’s specific claims are: a. The landlord did not provide any approved form of heating in the living room (as required by Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947) until she made a request for heating and a panel heater was installed sometime in 2022. However, she also claims that the panel heater was inadequate; b. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not working when she went to the premises at the end of the tenancy (to clean and collect her father’s belongings) because it did not work when she tried to switch it on; c. There were no working smoking alarms in the premises at the end of the tenancy. She refers to photos taken by her of the premises in which there are no smoke alarms present.
Mr Kennedy’s responses to the above claims are: a. Heating: He believes and has been informed by his electrician that the panel heater installed in 2022 replaced an existing heater. Therefore, the landlord is not in breach of their obligation to provide heating. As this tenancy commenced in 2015, the landlord was not required to comply with Healthy Homes Standards regulations regarding heating and heating capacity until 1 July 2025; b. Extractor fan: The landlord provided a statement from their electrician confirming that all electrical appliances including the extractor fan were operating when he checked them in March 2024, shortly after the tenancy ended; c. Smoke alarms: The landlord refutes the claim and says that the photos taken by Ms Moore do not show the areas in which the smoke alarms had been placed on the hallway ceiling and on the ceilings just inside the entrance to each bedroom. The alarms used were photoelectric Cavius alarms which are described in online literature as one of the smallest, barely visible but effective alarms.
There is insufficient evidence presented by Ms Moore to establish any of the above claims to the required civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. There is insufficient evidence to establish that there was no heater provided until 2022, nor that the panel heater was inadequate. There is no proof that the extractor fan was not working during the tenancy, nor that Ms Moore or her father raised any issue about the extractor fan not working during the tenancy. Finally, the photos Ms Moore presented do not show the areas in which the landlord says the smoke alarms have been placed. Given that they are small, Mr Kennedy suggests That Ms Moore may not have noticed them on her visit to the house. It follows that I dismiss the claims for lack of evidence.

Did the landlord breach any obligations regarding termination and eviction?

Ms Moore says that the landlord did not act in good faith during the termination process and reneged on an agreement reached with her on how to best evict her father as tenant. Her claims and the landlord’s responses may be summarised briefly as follows: a. Mr Kennedy knew the tenant had become unwell with dementia and that Ms Moore should be contacted (as they had previously emailed her about matters), but he did not provide her with a copy of the termination served on her father. The landlord disputes this claim and produced evidence at the hearing that they emailed Ms Moore a copy of the termination notice on 6 October 2023 and she responded to the email on 9 October 2023. The landlord also pointed out that there was no signed authority formally appointing Ms Moore as agent or representative for her father and nor has she been appointed an attorney to act on his behalf under any enduring power of attorney documents or by court orders. Nevertheless, the landlord says that they kept her informed of matters concerning her father; b. Mr Kennedy misled her in their discussions about the reasons for termination advising her that the landlord had to sell properties for financial reasons. However, the landlord later told her that they intended to re-tenant the premises. Therefore, she claims that the landlord misled her about the reasons for terminating the tenancy. She suggests that the termination notice was not genuine. The landlord disputes this and notes that they sent Ms Moore a copy of the termination notice given under section 51(2)(f) RTA. The notice clearly states that the landlord wished to commence extensive refurbishment of the premises and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was done. While there may have been some discussion about selling the premises, that was not the reason given in the notice and the landlord confirmed that the refurbishment work was necessary before they could sell or relet the premises and the work was completed. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the premises have been relet, but sale is still a possibility. c. Because Ms Moore had not been able to secure social housing or other temporary accommodation for her father, she and Mr Kennedy agreed on a plan that her father would need to be evicted by a bailiff. If her father refused, she hoped that Police would be called and transport him to Keneperu dementia unit, where he would receive the care he required rather than become homeless. She says that the landlord agreed to cooperate with the plan and advise her when the bailiff was due. She says that the landlord did not give her advance warning as agreed and contacted her after the bailiff had evicted her father already. Mr Kennedy produced an email advising Ms Moore on 15 February 2024 that the bailiff informed them that the eviction notice had been served on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises by 9.30am on the following Monday (19 February). Mr Kennedy says that he did his best to keep Ms Moore informed but the bailiff could not give him an eviction time and only contacted him afterwards. d. Ms Moore understood that Mr Kennedy was present when the bailiff conducted the eviction and arranged for the tenant to be dropped at the WINZ offices with his suitcases. Mr Kennedy denies this and says he was not present when the bailiff evicted the tenant and was not told about the eviction until after the event. He says he did not make any arrangements to drop the tenant at the WINZ offices. e. Ms Moore alleges that Mr Kennedy told her that he went to the premises the night before the eviction and stood over the tenant while he packed his suitcases. Mr Kennedy categorically denies this and says that while he visited the tenant sometime between 15 February and the eviction date, he stood outside the premises and talked with him. He did not go inside the premises or help the tenant to pack; f. The landlord says that the termination and eviction was a process they entered reluctantly, and they followed the RTA requirements.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to establish that the landlord breached any of their obligations concerning termination of the tenancy and the subsequent eviction. While not specifically claimed by Ms Moore, I do not find any evidence of the landlord giving a notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they were not entitled to do so, which would be a breach of s60AA RTA. I find that they gave a valid notice and complied with the process for termination and eviction in the RTA.
In summary, there is no basis for compensation or exemplary damages regarding the landlord’s actions in terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant. For that reason, the claims are dismissed.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully or breach quiet enjoyment?

Ms Moore claims that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully and/or harassed the tenant by standing over him while he packed the night before the eviction, as detailed in her evidence above. Such actions could be a breach of either s38 or s48 RTA.
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. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
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) RTA.
The landlord denies the allegations and Ms Moore has not provided sufficient evidence to establish any breach of either section 38 or 48. The claim is therefore dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on 19 February 2024, when the tenant was evicted from the premises.

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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as shown in photos of the premises taken after the tenant vacated produced in evidence. While I accept that Ms Moore attended the premises after her father was evicted and completed cleaning work, there were many areas of extensive mould on walls and around window frames and sills that remained. While the landlord intended to complete extensive refurbishment, they say that the mould still had to be further cleaned before repainting work could be done.
The landlord’s cleaning invoice covers some areas of work for which no clear photo evidence was provided. For example, there were no close-up photos to show the oven, rangehood, washing machine and dryer, all of which were items included in the cleaning invoice. Therefore, I have reduced the cleaning claim to $800 which I consider justified based on the photo evidence.

Is the tenant 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.
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. The landlord has insurance cover with an excess of $2,250.
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 section 49B(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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: All the carpets were stained and damaged; all the curtains were damaged by mould and all walls, skirtings and window frames and windowsills were damaged by mould and marks. The landlord seeks the costs of replacing carpets and curtains and repainting surfaces.
There was no pre -tenancy inspection report or photos to show the condition of the fixtures and fittings at the start of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that: the carpets were likely installed 2-3 years before the tenancy started, which would make them at least 11-12 years old; the curtains were “fairly new” when the tenancy started which would make them at least 8-9 years old, and the surfaces were last painted 2-3 years before the tenancy started (11-12 years ago). However, there was no evidence to verify the likely age of the items nor photos to show their condition at the start of the tenancy.
I can accept that the carpets, curtains, and painted surfaces show obvious signs of being damaged during the tenancy, other than by fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. However, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the expected life of items in a rental property as follows: Bedroom carpet—10-14 years; Living area carpet—8-12 years; Curtains—8 years; Painted bedroom walls—10-14 years; Painted living area walls—8-12 years.
Given that the landlord cannot prove the age of the items he wishes to replace; cannot prove the condition of those items at the start of the tenancy; and on the landlord’s evidence the items have likely reached the end of their life, I find that the replacement costs must be fully depreciated. Therefore, the claims for the replacement costs of the carpets, curtains and painted surfaces are dismissed.

Has the tenant failed to quit the premises without reasonable excuse?

Peter Kennedy As Trustee For The Kgh Trust As Agent For Executive Property Wellington Limited tenant did not vacate the premises on 22 December 2023, when the tenancy ended as set out in the termination notice. The tenant also failed to give possession on 5 February 2024, after the Tribunal issued a possession order. The landlord was forced to apply for an eviction order from the District Court.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am satisfied based on the medical evidence provided by Ms Moore that the tenant is suffering from several health conditions including dementia. A medical practitioner has certified that he lacks competence to manage his own affairs in relation to property and care and welfare and he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and foresee the consequences of decisions relating to his affairs.
The medical evidence establishes that the tenant would not have understood the termination notice and subsequent Tribunal possession order. Therefore, this provides a reasonable excuse as to why he failed to quit the premises. It follows that there is no basis for considering an award of exemplary damages under s40(3A)(a) and the claim is dismissed.
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. See section 95A RTA.
Neither party applied for suppression. However, I consider that the tenant’s name and identifying details ought to be suppressed given his medical conditions and the fact that he was likely unaware of the proceedings and unable to attend. Publishing the tenant’s details would not be in the Public interest nor in the interests of the tenant.
As the landlord has mostly succeeded in the proceedings, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817857 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817857 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Did the landlord breach any obligations regarding termination and eviction?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully or breach quiet enjoyment?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the tenant failed to quit the premises without reasonable excuse?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Did the landlord breach any obligations regarding termination and eviction?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully or breach quiet enjoyment?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the tenant failed to quit the premises without reasonable excuse?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions