How much money was awarded in case 4823957?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823957?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11799454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4823957?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823957?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11799454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823957 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823957 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823957 — net $1,129.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: carpet cleaning	$402.50	carpet cleaning
Compensation: cleaning	$200.00	cleaning
Compensation: repairs & maintenance	$500.00	repairs & maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,129.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,129.50

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Eckhoff appeared for the tenants and the landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s]. Background

This tenancy began on 9 February 2024 and was for a fixed term until 6 February 2025, and then became periodic. At the time of the hearing the tenants advised that they had given notice to end the tenancy.

The tenants have filed two applications. The first application (number 4823957) is a claim for carpet cleaning. The tenants requested a work order, noting they wanted the carpets professionally cleaned and flea treated. In the second application (4824100), the tenants requested a rent reduction, on the basis that the current rent did not reflect the reality of the condition of the premises.

A hearing on 9 May 2024 was adjourned for the filing of further evidence. Another hearing was scheduled for 15 October 2024. An adjournment was requested by the tenants as they wanted to try to resolve the issues at mediation. So, the Tribunal referred the matter to mediation. As the parties were unable to resolve the issues at mediation, a further hearing was scheduled.

In orders issued by the Tribunal on 9 May and 15 October 2024, the tenant’s claims have been described as follows: a. Compensation for carpet cleaning: $402.50 b. Compensation for breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). These relate to the requirement to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Both parties filed photographic and documentary evidence. The tenants provided a written account detailing the issues, along with copies of correspondence, and photographs. The landlord’s evidence includes invoices for work undertaken, and the entry inspection report, which includes photographs.

Following the current hearing, the tenants made a written request for the return of their bond. As this was not part of their applications, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this request, an order concerning the bond will not be made.

The tenants’ applications, as noted in paragraph 5, are considered below. General legal principles

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Carpet cleaning

The tenants state that the carpets were soiled, and there was a dust mite and/or flea infestation. They experienced bites on their bodies and rashes from the carpet, resulting in a family trip to the doctor. Medical evidence was provided. They had understood that the landlord would arrange for the carpet to be professionally cleaned prior to the start of the tenancy. When this did not occur, they arranged for professional carpet cleaning with flea/dust mite treatment. The invoice from the carpet cleaning company was provided. Once the professional cleaning was completed, the issue was resolved. They sought the carpet cleaning cost of $402.50.

In response, the landlord states that pest control was completed, and the property was treated for spiders. The rashes shown in the tenants’ photographs were likely due to bed bugs, rather than anything due to the carpet. It was unlikely to be due to fleas. The landlord rejected the statement that the carpet was heavily soiled. They provided evidence of invoices for pest control and cleaning. The cleaning invoice is dated 31 January 2024 and the landlord notes that the cleaners did a deep clean. Further cleaning was completed on 8 February 2024, before the tenants moved in. The landlord accepts that no steam cleaning of the carpet was done.

As noted above, the landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. Section 45(1)(a) requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord did arrange for the premises to be cleaned prior to the start of the tenancy. This is supported by the invoices showing that, on 31 January 2024, cleaning was completed by a professional cleaning company. A further clean was undertaken, as shown by the second invoice dated 8 February 2024. There is also photographic evidence in the entry inspection report. The landlord’s evidence also shows that some pest control measures were undertaken before the start of the tenancy, with the invoice recording that the interior and exterior of the premises had spider and wasp treatment.

However, it is also evident that, despite the cleaning and pest control measures undertaken by the landlord, and accepting that these problems may not have been observed, the carpet required professional cleaning and treatment for either fleas and/or dust mites. I have reached this conclusion based on the tenants’ evidence, which included photographic and medical evidence, which I found to be persuasive. Therefore, the landlord is to compensate the tenants for the carpet cleaning costs they incurred, in the amount of $402.50, as awarded above. Mould

The tenants were concerned about finding black mould on the windows. They accept that the landlord did eventually get a cleaner to address the mould, although they consider this ought to have been done before they moved in. They state they had to purchase a dehumidifier. They are unsure of the cause of the mould. Their son was in and out of hospital with a respiratory condition, and they were unhappy with the property.

In response, the landlord states that the tenants arranged for the exterior mould to be sprayed, and the landlord reimbursed them for this cost. The inside of the windows was also cleaned. Legal framework and analysis

In Semmens v Wadman, 1 the Tribunal noted that mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.

The presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair, and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive: Repia v Walsh Trust. 2

In this case, the tenants’ photographic evidence of mould is acknowledged. However, as the cases referred to above have observed, the presence of mould, 1 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 2 DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011 in itself, is insufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord. While unfortunate that the tenants’ son is suffering from a respiratory condition, there is no medical evidence to link this to the condition of the premises.

It must also be noted that the landlord has reimbursed the tenants for the costs incurred for removal of the exterior mould. The landlord has also shown, with evidence, that further cleaning was done after the tenants raised the issue of mould on the interior of the windows, and the cleaner went back to address these. This work appears to have been done before the tenancy began. The tenants have not provided any persuasive evidence to show that there was mould for the duration of the tenancy, or that it was more extensive than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.

Therefore, in terms of the mould, I am satisfied that the landlord has adequately addressed it, although it is acknowledged that the exterior mould was only removed after the tenants moved in. Accordingly, the claim for compensation arising from mould is dismissed. Cleanliness

The tenants have highlighted other areas which they consider were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. These are as follows.

Bay window seats: The tenants state that the cushions and seating around the bay window were dirty and needed to be cleaned. This issue was not addressed by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged that the cleaner may have missed them.

Garden: The tenants claim the garden was not reasonably tidy at the start of the tenancy. They have provided photographic evidence of the condition of the garden. In response, the landlord states that the gardening was done on 5 February 2024 and an invoice dated 26 February 2024 was provided. The landlord noted that the tenants’ photographs were taken on 24 February 2024 and at that time, the tenants were responsible for maintenance of the garden. In terms of the rubbish at the back, this had been removed.

Accepting that the landlord did arrange for cleaning of the interior prior to the start of the tenancy, it is apparent that some areas were missed, and further cleaning was required. In terms of the garden, this was more difficult to determine, since the timing of the photographic evidence produced by the tenants was unclear. Taking into account the overall evidence and submissions, the nature of the breach, its duration and effect on the tenants, I consider $200.00 to be reasonable compensation for the tenants in relation to the cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy. This is awarded above. Fibre

The tenants state that the home was advertised as having a fibre connection. However, they discovered, after moving in, that a fibre connection was not available from the street. They did not have any copies of the advertisements placed by the landlord. The tenants had spent three hours on the telephone to [internet companies] and would not have moved into the house if they had known there was no fibre network available.

The landlord states they did not advertise that the property had a fibre connection. There was broadband and fibre available in the area.

In this case, while I note the time and effort involved for the tenants in addressing this issue, and the evidence of the costs incurred, they have not provided evidence of the relevant advertising. In the absence of sufficient supporting evidence, this claim fails to meet the required standard and is dismissed. Repairs and maintenance Locks

The tenants state that there are locks in the premises that do not work. While a handyman came to repair them, afterwards, some locks that were still not fixed. Three locks were not functional.

The landlord states that, in terms of one of the locks, it was not aware that it was not working. However, the owner did organise for someone to remedy the issue regarding the locks.

In this case it seems that not all locks were functional at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord did arrange for a tradesperson to repair the locks, although it is unclear whether the landlord was made aware of this ongoing issue after the tradesperson attended. Water damage/plumbing

The tenants state there were ongoing issues with the plumbing in the kitchen. The kitchen sink was blocked and flooded. The tap was broken and there was water damage in the kitchen. The flooring was soft underfoot where there had been water damage. A plumber attended six times within a fortnight.

The landlord states that they had been managing the property for five to six years. The hot water cylinder under the sink leaked and was replaced three years ago. The water damage was from this incident. When they were notified by the tenants, they sent a plumber immediately. The sink was not flooding, it was just blocked. Every time these issues were reported, it was repaired. The issue concerning the kitchen floor was cosmetic, and the floor was not soft. The landlord notes that the premises was not a brand new house. Other repair/maintenance issues

The tenants claim a shelf had collapsed in the pantry and some dishes were broken, including a platter worth $130.00 (which was a wedding gift). There were issues with the rangehood, which had now been fixed. The landlord states that the shelf was replaced on 30th April and the pantry door was fixed

The tenants state there were holes in the wall in the garage, which were still there, and had not been repaired.

The tenants claim that at least four of the Venetian blinds in the bedrooms do not work properly. While the blinds could be closed, sometimes the chords got knotted and there were bite marks in some of the slats. In response, the landlord states the owner had installed the blinds and had it serviced. The bites on the blinds were made by a cat. The landlord was unaware of the snapped cord and would have addressed it had they been made aware of it.

The tenants state that the remotes for the air conditioning units do not work. Three were broken and early on, they had notified the landlord. The electrical issues had been resolved. The landlord states that three remotes for the heat pump were provided and were serviced on 5 March 2024. They believed this had been resolved. The tenants accepted this. They were unsure why they were still not working. Legal framework

The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 3 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. 3 Section 45(1)(b)

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 4 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 5 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 6 Analysis

I acknowledge that the premises was not brand new, and an element of wear and tear needs to be taken into account. In the legislation, the repair and maintenance obligation is aligned to the age and character of the premises.

In this case, I find that, overall, the landlord has been responsive to the tenants’ requests to attend to repairs once notified, and has made reasonable efforts to resolve the issues in a timely way. I also acknowledge there may have been delays that the tenants have found to be unacceptable. Understandably, the tenants felt many of these issues ought to have been checked and repaired before the start of the tenancy.

While a landlord does not have to foresee every latent and unobservable defect, in this case, there were items that could have been repaired before the start of the tenancy, since some of these defects are likely to have been observable.

The tenants seek a reduction in rent in view of the repair and maintenance issues raised. I do not find sufficient grounds for a rent reduction, based on the evidence provided. Most of the issues have been resolved within a relatively short or acceptable timeframe, although a few have remained.

Overall, having regard to the nature and duration of the repair issues, the resulting effect for the tenants, including the multiple disruptions, the inconvenience, the damage to their personal effects (from the collapse of the shelving), the amount of $500.00 is awarded in compensation. 4 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 5 Section 40(1)(d) 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085 Filing fee and name suppression

As the tenants have been successful with a number of their claims, the landlord is to pay one of the filing fees.

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord only. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting that some claims have been established by the tenants, while others have not, orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823957 — net $1,129.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: carpet cleaning	$402.50	carpet cleaning
Compensation: cleaning	$200.00	cleaning
Compensation: repairs & maintenance	$500.00	repairs & maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,129.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,129.50