What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4853204 about?

The tribunal order states: Br Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $70.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4853204?

Compensation: chair and bedroom carp…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853204?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853204?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4853204 about?

The tribunal order states: Br Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $70.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4853204?

Compensation: chair and bedroom carp…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853204?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853204?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 19 Drummond Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853204 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853204 — net $70.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: chair and bedroom carpet not reasonable at the start of the tenancy	$50.00	chair and bedroom carpet not reasonable at the start of the tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$70.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$70.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The parties had a fixed term tenancy. The parties agreed this could end after five weeks, with no additional cost to the tenant. The tenant has applied for compensation because she was not able to live in the tenancy premises for those five weeks. The landlord does not agree to pay compensation.

Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the landlord has an obligation to provide the tenancy premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This includes the flat and the furniture and appliances provided by the landlord.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have examined the photos and I find the desk chair and the carpet in the tenant’s bedroom were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant notified the landlord. The chair had unsightly stains on the fabric. The witness and the tenant said it was too dirty to sit on. The chair was replaced within two weeks of the tenancy starting, after some negotiating with the landlord. The tenant discovered nail clippings on the carpet down the side of the bed and these were removed by a cleaner just over three weeks into the tenancy.

I find a small amount of compensation should be allowed for these breaches of the duty to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This is because there was a loss of amenity and extra time spent contacting the landlord. I do not find the breaches were so serious that the tenant had no choice but to live elsewhere.

The tenant said she was not able to live at the flat for five weeks because of the condition of other items including these, and I make the following findings: • I find the HWC was working and just needed to be switched on. The landlord replied to the query about hot water in a timely manner. There was no breach here. • I find the new curtains – promised at the viewing - were installed within a reasonable time after the start of the tenancy. • I am not persuaded from the photos that there was mould on the curtains in the tenant’s room. • I find the desk was provided in a reasonable condition for the flat. • I find the wardrobe was provided in a reasonable condition for the flat. • I find the tenant’s photos do not prove the kitchen was in an unreasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. • I find the sofas required additional cleaning and this was arranged by the landlord in a timely manner, so there was no breach here. • I have not been provided with any photos to show that the bathroom was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. • The chipped paint on some of the walls is reasonable and is not a breach. • The washed out mark on the wall is reasonable and is not a breach.

I find there were no breaches by the landlord relating to these items so I cannot order compensation.

The tenant also claimed that the landlord was unprofessional and communicated in a way that caused her great stress. The landlord said dealing with the tenant was hard for her as well, and she agreed she hung up twice when talking to the tenant during the short tenancy. I have read the emails and messages provided by the parties. I find these were professional. It is unfortunate the landlord ran out of patience and disconnected two calls, but I am not persuaded there was a breach of the RTA and I do not find this to be a reason for the tenant not living in the flat, or for awarding compensation. Other orders

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in orders where landlords pay compensation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853204 — net $70.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: chair and bedroom carpet not reasonable at the start of the tenancy	$50.00	chair and bedroom carpet not reasonable at the start of the tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$70.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$70.44

Order

Br Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $70.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties had a fixed term tenancy. The parties agreed this could end after five weeks, with no additional cost to the tenant. The tenant has applied for compensation because she was not able to live in the tenancy premises for those five weeks. The landlord does not agree to pay compensation.
Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the landlord has an obligation to provide the tenancy premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This includes the flat and the furniture and appliances provided by the landlord.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have examined the photos and I find the desk chair and the carpet in the tenant’s bedroom were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant notified the landlord. The chair had unsightly stains on the fabric. The witness and the tenant said it was too dirty to sit on. The chair was replaced within two weeks of the tenancy starting, after some negotiating with the landlord. The tenant discovered nail clippings on the carpet down the side of the bed and these were removed by a cleaner just over three weeks into the tenancy.
I find a small amount of compensation should be allowed for these breaches of the duty to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. This is because there was a loss of amenity and extra time spent contacting the landlord. I do not find the breaches were so serious that the tenant had no choice but to live elsewhere.
The tenant said she was not able to live at the flat for five weeks because of the condition of other items including these, and I make the following findings: • I find the HWC was working and just needed to be switched on. The landlord replied to the query about hot water in a timely manner. There was no breach here. • I find the new curtains – promised at the viewing - were installed within a reasonable time after the start of the tenancy. • I am not persuaded from the photos that there was mould on the curtains in the tenant’s room. • I find the desk was provided in a reasonable condition for the flat. • I find the wardrobe was provided in a reasonable condition for the flat. • I find the tenant’s photos do not prove the kitchen was in an unreasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. • I find the sofas required additional cleaning and this was arranged by the landlord in a timely manner, so there was no breach here. • I have not been provided with any photos to show that the bathroom was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. • The chipped paint on some of the walls is reasonable and is not a breach. • The washed out mark on the wall is reasonable and is not a breach.
I find there were no breaches by the landlord relating to these items so I cannot order compensation.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord was unprofessional and communicated in a way that caused her great stress. The landlord said dealing with the tenant was hard for her as well, and she agreed she hung up twice when talking to the tenant during the short tenancy. I have read the emails and messages provided by the parties. I find these were professional. It is unfortunate the landlord ran out of patience and disconnected two calls, but I am not persuaded there was a breach of the RTA and I do not find this to be a reason for the tenant not living in the flat, or for awarding compensation. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in orders where landlords pay compensation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853204 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 19 Drummond Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853204 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 19 Drummond Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions