What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4847924 about?

The tribunal order states: Timothy Marshall and Phoebe Fordyce must pay [The landlord/s] $96.00

How much money was awarded in case 4847924?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Remote: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $321.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847924?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11035375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4847924 about?

The tribunal order states: Timothy Marshall and Phoebe Fordyce must pay [The landlord/s] $96.00

How much money was awarded in case 4847924?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Garage Remote: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $321.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847924?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11035375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32A Coronation Road, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847924 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847924 — net $96.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power	$321.00		Power
Garage remote	$220.00		Garage remote
Cleaning	$575.00		Cleaning
Bond balance		$520.00	Bond balance
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement		$500.00	Tenancy agreement
Total award	$1,116.00	$1,020.00
Net award	$96.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$96.00

Order

Timothy Marshall and Phoebe Fordyce must pay [The landlord/s] $96.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant resides overseas so attended the hearing by telephone. The landlord attending the hearing in person and had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
An order was made on 2 April 2024 declaring that the tenancy is a residential tenancy which falls under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord applied for a rehearing which was granted, and a further hearing was held on 20 August 2024. The Tribunal order dated 21 August 2024 declared that the agreement between the parties is a residential tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The proceedings were adjourned for consideration of the substantive applications and that hearing was held on 4 November 2024.
The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning, power, a garage remote and replacement of a showerhead. The landlord also sought compensation for stress caused.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages in relation to unlawful entry by the landlord, breaches in relation to the tenancy agreement, and a breach of section 137. Landlord application
The tenant agreed to the power claim and compensation for the garage remote. Those amounts are ordered by consent.
The landlord sought compensation for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The invoice submitted by the landlord is for $575.00.
The tenant acknowledges that some things were not cleaned. When the tenancy ended the landlord provided the tenant with an opportunity to clean the items that needed cleaning such as the rubbish bin, dishwasher and some of the drawers. The tenant chose not to return to carry out this cleaning.
At the hearing the tenant said that the premises were returned to the landlord in a better state than it was provided at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant said that the premises were dirty when the tenancy commenced, and the parties agreed for the tenant to be refunded $300.00 to cover this.
The test for whether the tenant is responsible for further cleaning of the premises is whether they are reasonably clean and tidy not whether it is cleaner than when the tenancy began.
I am satisfied from the evidence produced that the premises were not clean and tidy as required by section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord provided the tenant with an opportunity to address the unclean issues, but the tenant chose not to do so. I note that the landlord does not have to provide the tenant with this opportunity. As the premises were unclean the landlord employed commercial cleaners. The invoice submitted is accepted and that amount is ordered against the tenant.
The landlord claimed for a broken shower head. The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for the broken shower head due to forceful use. The landlord also relied on the tenant not advising that the showerhead was broken despite there being three monthly inspections.
The tenant said that the showerhead was broken early in the tenancy and acknowledged not advising the landlord because he temporarily fixed it for it to be used.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has damaged the shower head. If the showerhead has broken from normal use, it is due to fair wear and tear. There is no evidence that the tenant used any force or that the damage was caused during this tenancy. I note that there was no ingoing inspection report, and the outgoing inspection report does not show that the showerhead is damaged. That claim is dismissed.
At the hearing the landlord referred to the stress that she says that she has suffered from managing this tenancy. She suggested that she had suffered from blackmail and threats.
The blackmail was apparently the tenant saying that he would apply to the Tribunal if there was no agreement. The tenant is entitled to apply to the Tribunal. There is no evidence of blackmail or threats. That claim is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant applied for exemplary damages in relation to an alleged unlawful entry by an agent of the landlord. The tenant said that the unlawful entry occurred on 1 January 2024 when someone attended at the front door of the premises at 9pm. The tenant said that the person did not speak English and after contacting the landlord it turned out that the person was there to take photographs of the air-conditioning unit.
The landlord does not recall this event.
The tenant did not have any evidence that this incident occurred. If the incident was a problem for the tenant I would have expected the tenant to follow up about this with the landlord. There was no email or text message complaining about the unlawful entry or that it caused any inconvenience.
Due to conflicting evidence between the parties and a lack of any other evidence by the tenant, that part of his claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages in relation to the tenancy agreement. The landlord had prepared a flat sharing agreement for the tenant to sign rather than a tenancy agreement.
The flat sharing agreement recorded the Property Management company as the agent for the tenants who occupied the downstairs area as the Head Tenant.
The landlord said that the tenant was provided with a choice to have a tenancy agreement of a flat sharing agreement. At the hearing the landlord said the flat sharing agreement was offered because she knew that only one tenancy agreement could be used for each premises.
The premises occupied by this tenant was the upstairs of the property. There was a separate tenancy downstairs, and those tenants had a tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The effect of the landlord not providing the tenant with a tenancy agreement is that much of the information required to be included in the tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was not provided to the tenant.
Section 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1987 states that the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on or after commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 sets out the information that must be included 1 in the tenancy agreement as follows: (a) Information about the heating standard, insulation standards, ventilation standards, draught stopping standards, moisture ingress and drainage standards and information if relying on general exemptions.
The landlord did not provide a statement or any of the above information. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had included a statement in the tenancy agreement with the downstairs tenant. It appears that the tenancy agreement with that tenant meets all the requirements of section 13A. But this tenant did not have all the information that should have been included in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has intentionally breached the Act. This breach has had an impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest that landlords provide tenants with a 1 Regulation 34 to 39 tenancy agreement when it is not a flat sharing arrangement. I consider that an award of $500.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages due to an alleged breach of section 137(2) by the landlord.
Section 137(1) provides: No person shall— (a) enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or (b)enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act.
This relates to the landlord providing a flat sharing agreement as opposed to a tenancy agreement. As I have awarded exemplary damages above in relation to the tenancy agreement section 137A prevents two awards of exemplary damages in relation to the same conduct.
The tenant’s claim in relation to section 137 is dismissed.
As both parties have had some success I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I make an order suppressing the landlord’s name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847924 — net $96.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power	$321.00		Power
Garage remote	$220.00		Garage remote
Cleaning	$575.00		Cleaning
Bond balance		$520.00	Bond balance
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement		$500.00	Tenancy agreement
Total award	$1,116.00	$1,020.00
Net award	$96.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$96.00

Order

Timothy Marshall and Phoebe Fordyce must pay [The landlord/s] $96.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant resides overseas so attended the hearing by telephone. The landlord attending the hearing in person and had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
An order was made on 2 April 2024 declaring that the tenancy is a residential tenancy which falls under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord applied for a rehearing which was granted, and a further hearing was held on 20 August 2024. The Tribunal order dated 21 August 2024 declared that the agreement between the parties is a residential tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The proceedings were adjourned for consideration of the substantive applications and that hearing was held on 4 November 2024.
The landlord applied for compensation for cleaning, power, a garage remote and replacement of a showerhead. The landlord also sought compensation for stress caused.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages in relation to unlawful entry by the landlord, breaches in relation to the tenancy agreement, and a breach of section 137. Landlord application
The tenant agreed to the power claim and compensation for the garage remote. Those amounts are ordered by consent.
The landlord sought compensation for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The invoice submitted by the landlord is for $575.00.
The tenant acknowledges that some things were not cleaned. When the tenancy ended the landlord provided the tenant with an opportunity to clean the items that needed cleaning such as the rubbish bin, dishwasher and some of the drawers. The tenant chose not to return to carry out this cleaning.
At the hearing the tenant said that the premises were returned to the landlord in a better state than it was provided at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant said that the premises were dirty when the tenancy commenced, and the parties agreed for the tenant to be refunded $300.00 to cover this.
The test for whether the tenant is responsible for further cleaning of the premises is whether they are reasonably clean and tidy not whether it is cleaner than when the tenancy began.
I am satisfied from the evidence produced that the premises were not clean and tidy as required by section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord provided the tenant with an opportunity to address the unclean issues, but the tenant chose not to do so. I note that the landlord does not have to provide the tenant with this opportunity. As the premises were unclean the landlord employed commercial cleaners. The invoice submitted is accepted and that amount is ordered against the tenant.
The landlord claimed for a broken shower head. The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for the broken shower head due to forceful use. The landlord also relied on the tenant not advising that the showerhead was broken despite there being three monthly inspections.
The tenant said that the showerhead was broken early in the tenancy and acknowledged not advising the landlord because he temporarily fixed it for it to be used.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has damaged the shower head. If the showerhead has broken from normal use, it is due to fair wear and tear. There is no evidence that the tenant used any force or that the damage was caused during this tenancy. I note that there was no ingoing inspection report, and the outgoing inspection report does not show that the showerhead is damaged. That claim is dismissed.
At the hearing the landlord referred to the stress that she says that she has suffered from managing this tenancy. She suggested that she had suffered from blackmail and threats.
The blackmail was apparently the tenant saying that he would apply to the Tribunal if there was no agreement. The tenant is entitled to apply to the Tribunal. There is no evidence of blackmail or threats. That claim is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant applied for exemplary damages in relation to an alleged unlawful entry by an agent of the landlord. The tenant said that the unlawful entry occurred on 1 January 2024 when someone attended at the front door of the premises at 9pm. The tenant said that the person did not speak English and after contacting the landlord it turned out that the person was there to take photographs of the air-conditioning unit.
The landlord does not recall this event.
The tenant did not have any evidence that this incident occurred. If the incident was a problem for the tenant I would have expected the tenant to follow up about this with the landlord. There was no email or text message complaining about the unlawful entry or that it caused any inconvenience.
Due to conflicting evidence between the parties and a lack of any other evidence by the tenant, that part of his claim is dismissed.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages in relation to the tenancy agreement. The landlord had prepared a flat sharing agreement for the tenant to sign rather than a tenancy agreement.
The flat sharing agreement recorded the Property Management company as the agent for the tenants who occupied the downstairs area as the Head Tenant.
The landlord said that the tenant was provided with a choice to have a tenancy agreement of a flat sharing agreement. At the hearing the landlord said the flat sharing agreement was offered because she knew that only one tenancy agreement could be used for each premises.
The premises occupied by this tenant was the upstairs of the property. There was a separate tenancy downstairs, and those tenants had a tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The effect of the landlord not providing the tenant with a tenancy agreement is that much of the information required to be included in the tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was not provided to the tenant.
Section 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1987 states that the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on or after commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 sets out the information that must be included 1 in the tenancy agreement as follows: (a) Information about the heating standard, insulation standards, ventilation standards, draught stopping standards, moisture ingress and drainage standards and information if relying on general exemptions.
The landlord did not provide a statement or any of the above information. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had included a statement in the tenancy agreement with the downstairs tenant. It appears that the tenancy agreement with that tenant meets all the requirements of section 13A. But this tenant did not have all the information that should have been included in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has intentionally breached the Act. This breach has had an impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest that landlords provide tenants with a 1 Regulation 34 to 39 tenancy agreement when it is not a flat sharing arrangement. I consider that an award of $500.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages due to an alleged breach of section 137(2) by the landlord.
Section 137(1) provides: No person shall— (a) enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or (b)enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act.
This relates to the landlord providing a flat sharing agreement as opposed to a tenancy agreement. As I have awarded exemplary damages above in relation to the tenancy agreement section 137A prevents two awards of exemplary damages in relation to the same conduct.
The tenant’s claim in relation to section 137 is dismissed.
As both parties have had some success I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I make an order suppressing the landlord’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847924 — Cleanliness at 32A Coronation Road, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847924 — Cleanliness at 32A Coronation Road, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions