What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4845020 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4845020?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Portion Of Expenses Incurred By Land…: $532.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845020?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10720027-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4845020 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4845020?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Portion Of Expenses Incurred By Land…: $532.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845020?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10720027-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Okoka Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4845020 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845020 — net $512.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Portion of expenses incurred by landlord releasing tenant	$532.68		Portion of expenses incurred by landlord releasing tenant
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$532.68	$20.44
Net award	$512.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$512.24

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Russell.
These claims relate to the tenancy of a three level property on Waiheke. The property has two bedrooms and a self-contained studio downstairs.
The tenancy began on 29 August 2019 and was initially for a fixed term of one year. The parties have renewed the tenancy each year and did so again in 2023, so the tenancy was due to end on 28 August 2024.
In November 2023 however the tenant contacted the landlord to advise that she would like to leave the tenancy early. The tenant moved out on 1 March 2024.
The tenant filed a claim on 25 March 2024 seeking to have her bond refunded.
The landlord then filed a claim on 20 May 2024 seeking a total sum of $2,300.36 made up as follows: a. Rent arrears in the amount of $887.14 (a period of 9 days from 2 March 2024 to 10 March 2024); b. An “early release fee” in the amount of $1,065.36; c. Cleaning in the amount of $103.50; and d. Repairs in the amount of $244.36.
The claims were heard together at the hearing. The tenant’s claim is for the refund of her bond, which she is entitled to unless the landlord can prove their claims against the tenant. The onus therefore rests on the landlord to prove their claims to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and referred to at the hearing today, but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision.

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent and break-lease fees?

The landlord says the tenant signed a break lease application form and accepted that they would pay rent until a new tenant was found and any expenses incurred by the landlord in finding a new tenant. She said that the landlord sent a sheet showing likely expenses when they sent the tenant the break lease application form.
Ms Russell explained that a new tenant did not then move in until 18 March 2024, leaving 17 days of rent unpaid. She said that the landlord accepts that some maintenance was required between tenancies and so only seeks 9 days of rent (to 10 March 2024).
The landlord provided an itemised list of expenses incurred in re-letting the property (for advertising, attending viewings, conducting credit checks etc) totalling $1,065.36.
The tenant accepted that she had agreed to the landlord’s terms but that she should not be liable for additional rent and expenses because: a. She in fact found a new tenant who was excited to move in but ultimately decided not to due to the landlord changing the terms of the tenancy (not allowing the tenant to initially rent out the self-contained studio) and because they did not like the way the landlord communicated with them; b. The landlord advertised the property at an increased rent (an additional $20 per week), which reduced the amount of people who were interested in the property; and c. The landlord’s actions have led to their expenses being much higher than they should have been.
I have carefully reviewed all of the documents and have considered the submissions made at the hearing.
In my view the communications between the landlord and the prospective tenant have at the very least led to confusion about whether or not the tenant was entitled to find a flatmate for the studio flat, and this has led to them pulling out of the tenancy. I note in addition that the landlord has taken the opportunity to increase the rent, something they would not have been able to do if the tenant had stayed until the end of the fixed term. This has led to a windfall in the landlord’s favour of approximately $460 (the increased rent paid from the time the new tenant moved in until August 2024).
The landlord appears to have recognised that by increasing the rent it may well have taken longer to find a new tenant but has decided to compensate the tenant by reducing the expenses payable. Ms Russell sent and email to the tenant stating: “I have deducted my viewings and travel associated fees by 50% to compensate for the rent increase of $20 per week and the prospective tenants that may not have been interested due to this”
However I note that the total expenses that can be charged are capped at $950+GST so the discount really made no difference to the amount charged to the tenant, which is very close to the cap even with the discount.
In my view the tenant should have received a tangible discount to compensate her for the increased costs incurred by the landlord. I consider a discount of 50% to be appropriate, which reduces the total amount to $532.86. The tenant is liable to pay this amount.

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 says that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy as there was straw and associated mess scattered across some outside steps from the tenant’s guinea pigs, the dishwasher required some additional cleaning around the hinges and the filter was not clean, the oven required some additional cleaning, the cupboard under the laundry tub had not been wiped down and the rubbish bins had not been cleaned. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $103.50 for cleaning.
The landlord provided both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos of the condition of the property. The tenant provided outgoing inspection photos.
Tenants are required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The property does not need to be spotless in every respect and ready for a new tenant to move into. It is expected that a landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
In my view, having carefully reviewed all of the evidence, the tenant left the property reasonably clean and tidy overall.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.

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.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused the following damage: a. The railing on the stairs had come away from the wall at the top; b. Both heated towel rails had come away from the wall; and c. There were nail holes in one of the walls.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $244.38 for “Reinstall towel rail into timber. Repair wall damage. Re attach stairway handrail. Remove nails/hooks and remedy wall holes”.
In response the tenant said that the stair-railing and heated towel rails had come away from the wall because they were only fixed into jib, and that the damage is inevitable wear and tear.
The tenant called a builder, Mr [Name Suppressed], to give evidence. He confirmed that the stair rail had come away previously and that he found that the railing was only fixed to the jib and that there was no wood behind the jib to properly fix the railing to. He said that the same issue existed in the upstairs bathroom. He said that it would be a reasonably large job to rectify both issues as it would be necessary to remove the jib, put proper support in place and then install new jib before re-fixing the railings.
The landlord raised with me the fact that Mr [Name Suppressed] is the ex- partner of the tenant, and that he is not a certified builder. Mr [Name Suppressed] confirmed both of these facts to be correct. He said that he currently works as a builder and has many years of building experience. He was familiar with the provisions of the Building Code. He explained that he knows the owner and had previously been engaged by the landlord to do work on an exterior deck. He said that he did a simple repair when the stair rail had come away previously (re-fixing the rail into the jib was some small additional support) was not engaged to properly fix the railing. He was fairly certain that he had raised the issue with the owner at some stage.
The tenant said that the nails/hooks that the landlord was claiming to remedy were in fact hooks that were there when she moved in. She said that the landlord had their own art hung and that it was taken down leaving the nails/hooks in place.
I have reviewed the evidence carefully. The pre-inspection photos do show artwork hung in the tenancy, which must have been on hooks/hails, and so in my view the landlord has not proved that this part of the damage was caused during the tenancy.
In the absence of any competing evidence by the landlord I accept that the stair railing and heated towel rails having come way are wear and tear rather than careless damage caused by the tenant. The landlord advised that the property is approximately 25 years old. It is clear from the photos that the stair railing is fixed directly into the gib. I accept that Mr [Name Suppressed] is the ex-partner of the tenant and so is not an independent witness but he gave evidence under oath and my impression was that he answered all questions honestly and carefully. The landlord did not present any evidence on this issue. Filing fee and name suppression
Although I have ordered that the tenant contribute to the landlord’s break lease expenses I consider that the tenant is the substantially successful party. This is because the tenant had accepted that she would be liable for some portion of fees/rent when she applied to end the fixed term tenancy. However the parties could not agree and so the tenant has applied for a refund of her bond and has been substantially successful.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have made an order for name suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details (including her ex-partner’s name) pursuant to Section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845020 — net $512.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Portion of expenses incurred by landlord releasing tenant	$532.68		Portion of expenses incurred by landlord releasing tenant
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$532.68	$20.44
Net award	$512.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$512.24

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Russell.
These claims relate to the tenancy of a three level property on Waiheke. The property has two bedrooms and a self-contained studio downstairs.
The tenancy began on 29 August 2019 and was initially for a fixed term of one year. The parties have renewed the tenancy each year and did so again in 2023, so the tenancy was due to end on 28 August 2024.
In November 2023 however the tenant contacted the landlord to advise that she would like to leave the tenancy early. The tenant moved out on 1 March 2024.
The tenant filed a claim on 25 March 2024 seeking to have her bond refunded.
The landlord then filed a claim on 20 May 2024 seeking a total sum of $2,300.36 made up as follows: a. Rent arrears in the amount of $887.14 (a period of 9 days from 2 March 2024 to 10 March 2024); b. An “early release fee” in the amount of $1,065.36; c. Cleaning in the amount of $103.50; and d. Repairs in the amount of $244.36.
The claims were heard together at the hearing. The tenant’s claim is for the refund of her bond, which she is entitled to unless the landlord can prove their claims against the tenant. The onus therefore rests on the landlord to prove their claims to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and referred to at the hearing today, but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision.

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent and break-lease fees?

The landlord says the tenant signed a break lease application form and accepted that they would pay rent until a new tenant was found and any expenses incurred by the landlord in finding a new tenant. She said that the landlord sent a sheet showing likely expenses when they sent the tenant the break lease application form.
Ms Russell explained that a new tenant did not then move in until 18 March 2024, leaving 17 days of rent unpaid. She said that the landlord accepts that some maintenance was required between tenancies and so only seeks 9 days of rent (to 10 March 2024).
The landlord provided an itemised list of expenses incurred in re-letting the property (for advertising, attending viewings, conducting credit checks etc) totalling $1,065.36.
The tenant accepted that she had agreed to the landlord’s terms but that she should not be liable for additional rent and expenses because: a. She in fact found a new tenant who was excited to move in but ultimately decided not to due to the landlord changing the terms of the tenancy (not allowing the tenant to initially rent out the self-contained studio) and because they did not like the way the landlord communicated with them; b. The landlord advertised the property at an increased rent (an additional $20 per week), which reduced the amount of people who were interested in the property; and c. The landlord’s actions have led to their expenses being much higher than they should have been.
I have carefully reviewed all of the documents and have considered the submissions made at the hearing.
In my view the communications between the landlord and the prospective tenant have at the very least led to confusion about whether or not the tenant was entitled to find a flatmate for the studio flat, and this has led to them pulling out of the tenancy. I note in addition that the landlord has taken the opportunity to increase the rent, something they would not have been able to do if the tenant had stayed until the end of the fixed term. This has led to a windfall in the landlord’s favour of approximately $460 (the increased rent paid from the time the new tenant moved in until August 2024).
The landlord appears to have recognised that by increasing the rent it may well have taken longer to find a new tenant but has decided to compensate the tenant by reducing the expenses payable. Ms Russell sent and email to the tenant stating: “I have deducted my viewings and travel associated fees by 50% to compensate for the rent increase of $20 per week and the prospective tenants that may not have been interested due to this”
However I note that the total expenses that can be charged are capped at $950+GST so the discount really made no difference to the amount charged to the tenant, which is very close to the cap even with the discount.
In my view the tenant should have received a tangible discount to compensate her for the increased costs incurred by the landlord. I consider a discount of 50% to be appropriate, which reduces the total amount to $532.86. The tenant is liable to pay this amount.

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 says that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy as there was straw and associated mess scattered across some outside steps from the tenant’s guinea pigs, the dishwasher required some additional cleaning around the hinges and the filter was not clean, the oven required some additional cleaning, the cupboard under the laundry tub had not been wiped down and the rubbish bins had not been cleaned. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $103.50 for cleaning.
The landlord provided both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos of the condition of the property. The tenant provided outgoing inspection photos.
Tenants are required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The property does not need to be spotless in every respect and ready for a new tenant to move into. It is expected that a landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
In my view, having carefully reviewed all of the evidence, the tenant left the property reasonably clean and tidy overall.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.

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.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused the following damage: a. The railing on the stairs had come away from the wall at the top; b. Both heated towel rails had come away from the wall; and c. There were nail holes in one of the walls.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $244.38 for “Reinstall towel rail into timber. Repair wall damage. Re attach stairway handrail. Remove nails/hooks and remedy wall holes”.
In response the tenant said that the stair-railing and heated towel rails had come away from the wall because they were only fixed into jib, and that the damage is inevitable wear and tear.
The tenant called a builder, Mr [Name Suppressed], to give evidence. He confirmed that the stair rail had come away previously and that he found that the railing was only fixed to the jib and that there was no wood behind the jib to properly fix the railing to. He said that the same issue existed in the upstairs bathroom. He said that it would be a reasonably large job to rectify both issues as it would be necessary to remove the jib, put proper support in place and then install new jib before re-fixing the railings.
The landlord raised with me the fact that Mr [Name Suppressed] is the ex- partner of the tenant, and that he is not a certified builder. Mr [Name Suppressed] confirmed both of these facts to be correct. He said that he currently works as a builder and has many years of building experience. He was familiar with the provisions of the Building Code. He explained that he knows the owner and had previously been engaged by the landlord to do work on an exterior deck. He said that he did a simple repair when the stair rail had come away previously (re-fixing the rail into the jib was some small additional support) was not engaged to properly fix the railing. He was fairly certain that he had raised the issue with the owner at some stage.
The tenant said that the nails/hooks that the landlord was claiming to remedy were in fact hooks that were there when she moved in. She said that the landlord had their own art hung and that it was taken down leaving the nails/hooks in place.
I have reviewed the evidence carefully. The pre-inspection photos do show artwork hung in the tenancy, which must have been on hooks/hails, and so in my view the landlord has not proved that this part of the damage was caused during the tenancy.
In the absence of any competing evidence by the landlord I accept that the stair railing and heated towel rails having come way are wear and tear rather than careless damage caused by the tenant. The landlord advised that the property is approximately 25 years old. It is clear from the photos that the stair railing is fixed directly into the gib. I accept that Mr [Name Suppressed] is the ex-partner of the tenant and so is not an independent witness but he gave evidence under oath and my impression was that he answered all questions honestly and carefully. The landlord did not present any evidence on this issue. Filing fee and name suppression
Although I have ordered that the tenant contribute to the landlord’s break lease expenses I consider that the tenant is the substantially successful party. This is because the tenant had accepted that she would be liable for some portion of fees/rent when she applied to end the fixed term tenancy. However the parties could not agree and so the tenant has applied for a refund of her bond and has been substantially successful.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have made an order for name suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details (including her ex-partner’s name) pursuant to Section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845020 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Okoka Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845020 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Okoka Road, Omiha, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent and break-lease fees?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent and break-lease fees?

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