What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826357 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 4826357?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826357?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826357?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10593670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826357 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 4826357?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826357?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826357?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10593670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Princes Street, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826357 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Andrea Muir represented the landlord trustees.
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for garden work ($200) and cleaning and re-staining of a deck ($1,955).
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy as it was not in the same condition that it was left. She said that weeding was required and that there were various lavender plants that had been pushed over or damaged in some way.
The landlord claimed compensation of $200 made up of $120 for time spent weeding by the landlord and family (3 people) and $80 for replacement lavender plants. No invoice was provided. The Tribunal will sometimes order compensation for work done by the landlord at a reasonable hourly rate but is unable to order compensation for replacement plants without an invoice.
I was provided with both entry and exit inspection photos showing the state of the garden at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that: a. There were approximately three lavender plants but that they became woody and waterlogged and died, but were not removed. He says that the state of the lavender plants was not caused by any tenant breach. b. There were weeds in the garden at the outset and that the garden was left reasonably clean and tidy in all the circumstances. He said that he did considerable garden work during the tenancy and that the lawns and edges were done by the landlord’s contractor and were not his responsibility.
I have heard from both parties and have carefully reviewed the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos. In my view the tenant has left the gardens reasonably clean and tidy. I accept that some additional weeding may have been required at the end of the tenancy, but this was a tenancy of well over a year. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional garden tidying at the end of a tenancy. I note in addition that the ingoing inspection photos show that there were a number of areas with weeds at the start of the tenancy.
In my view the landlord has not proved that it is more likely than not that the tenant has damaged the lavender plants. The plants appear to have died but this may just as easily have been from the conditions at the property. The surrounding plants appear unaffected. I also note that no invoice was provided for the replacement plants.

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.
Ms Muir says that during the final inspection of the property on 9 February 2024 she noticed staining on the lower deck due to a spa pool. She said that Victoria Muir attempted to fix the stain by using deck cleaner and a deck brush, without success.
Ms Muir obtained a quote in the amount of $1955 to clean and re-stain the deck.
The tenant says that he owns a boat building company and knows about restoring timber. He says that the stain is not a stain at all but the original wood colour that has come through from cleaning, when the rest of the deck has faded to a natural grey. He says that the deck was not in good repair during the tenancy due to mould growth, which is common in Auckland, and needed to be cleaned/stained in any event.
I have reviewed the photos and note that there is a brown/wood-coloured mark in the outline of a spa pool in the outgoing inspection photos that is not present on the ingoing inspection photos. The ingoing inspection do show some black mould on the deck.
I do not consider that I need to determine the cause of (and liability for) the staining however as the landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with an invoice for the cleaning and re-staining work. Ms Muir confirmed at the hearing that the landlord had not in fact done the work but had instead placed the property on the market for sale.
The landlord has not incurred any costs for cleaning and staining the deck and so the Tribunal is unable to award compensation. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has had to file a claim to recover his bond. The landlord has not been successful in seeking compensation from the tenant. In the circumstances, as the tenant has been wholly successful, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
On enquiry at the hearing the tenant sought an order for name suppression. The tenant is entitled to an order for name suppression as the successful party, pursuant to section 95A(1) RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Andrea Muir represented the landlord trustees.
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for garden work ($200) and cleaning and re-staining of a deck ($1,955).
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy as it was not in the same condition that it was left. She said that weeding was required and that there were various lavender plants that had been pushed over or damaged in some way.
The landlord claimed compensation of $200 made up of $120 for time spent weeding by the landlord and family (3 people) and $80 for replacement lavender plants. No invoice was provided. The Tribunal will sometimes order compensation for work done by the landlord at a reasonable hourly rate but is unable to order compensation for replacement plants without an invoice.
I was provided with both entry and exit inspection photos showing the state of the garden at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that: a. There were approximately three lavender plants but that they became woody and waterlogged and died, but were not removed. He says that the state of the lavender plants was not caused by any tenant breach. b. There were weeds in the garden at the outset and that the garden was left reasonably clean and tidy in all the circumstances. He said that he did considerable garden work during the tenancy and that the lawns and edges were done by the landlord’s contractor and were not his responsibility.
I have heard from both parties and have carefully reviewed the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos. In my view the tenant has left the gardens reasonably clean and tidy. I accept that some additional weeding may have been required at the end of the tenancy, but this was a tenancy of well over a year. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional garden tidying at the end of a tenancy. I note in addition that the ingoing inspection photos show that there were a number of areas with weeds at the start of the tenancy.
In my view the landlord has not proved that it is more likely than not that the tenant has damaged the lavender plants. The plants appear to have died but this may just as easily have been from the conditions at the property. The surrounding plants appear unaffected. I also note that no invoice was provided for the replacement plants.

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.
Ms Muir says that during the final inspection of the property on 9 February 2024 she noticed staining on the lower deck due to a spa pool. She said that Victoria Muir attempted to fix the stain by using deck cleaner and a deck brush, without success.
Ms Muir obtained a quote in the amount of $1955 to clean and re-stain the deck.
The tenant says that he owns a boat building company and knows about restoring timber. He says that the stain is not a stain at all but the original wood colour that has come through from cleaning, when the rest of the deck has faded to a natural grey. He says that the deck was not in good repair during the tenancy due to mould growth, which is common in Auckland, and needed to be cleaned/stained in any event.
I have reviewed the photos and note that there is a brown/wood-coloured mark in the outline of a spa pool in the outgoing inspection photos that is not present on the ingoing inspection photos. The ingoing inspection do show some black mould on the deck.
I do not consider that I need to determine the cause of (and liability for) the staining however as the landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with an invoice for the cleaning and re-staining work. Ms Muir confirmed at the hearing that the landlord had not in fact done the work but had instead placed the property on the market for sale.
The landlord has not incurred any costs for cleaning and staining the deck and so the Tribunal is unable to award compensation. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has had to file a claim to recover his bond. The landlord has not been successful in seeking compensation from the tenant. In the circumstances, as the tenant has been wholly successful, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
On enquiry at the hearing the tenant sought an order for name suppression. The tenant is entitled to an order for name suppression as the successful party, pursuant to section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826357 — Mould & damp at 21 Princes Street, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826357 — Mould & damp at 21 Princes Street, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions