What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873241 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $929.00 from the bond ([Bond number

How much money was awarded in case 4873241?

The reconciled net award was $929.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873241?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10885689-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873241 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $929.00 from the bond ([Bond number

How much money was awarded in case 4873241?

The reconciled net award was $929.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873241?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10885689-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873241 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873241 — net $929.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$929.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873241 — net $929.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$929.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $929.00 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) in accordance with the following table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720 ([Bond number suppressed]) apportioned as follows: $929.00 to [The landlord/s] $1,791.00 to [The tenant/s]
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of these claims which was heard by way of a rehearing.
This tenancy commenced on 19 February 2024. On 28 May the tenants gave notice to leave thinking that had a periodic tenancy and could do so. [The landlord/s] responded by saying they had a fixed term tenancy and as such were under an obligation to find replacement tenants if they wished to leave early.
The tenants did leave on 28 April and following that [The landlord/s] filed an application for rent arrears and compensation. The tenants cross applied for their bond to be returned.
I consider each claim separately below and in doing so apply the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. What that means is that each applicant must convince me that their assertions are more likely than not. They should do that providing corroborating evidence where possible.
The questions for the Tribunal are: a. Did the parties have a fixed term or periodic tenancy? b. How should the bond be apportioned? Question 1: Did the parties have a fixed term or periodic tenancy?
The tenants say they signed a periodic tenancy agreement and were not provided with a copy of the agreement after they signed it as a landlord is statutorily required to do pursuant to section 13(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They say [The landlord/s] retrospectively filled in the section on the agreement that confirms it is a fixed term. The evidence they submit in support of this is as follows: a. The writing is different on the two dates. b. The advertisement on Marketplace did not say anything about the duration of the advertised tenancy. c. When they were messaging with the landlord’s representative about the property the duration was not mentioned. d. They specifically requested a periodic tenancy because they wished to buy a house at some point and discussed with [The landlord/s] their ability to give 28 days’ notice to vacate. e. The contract they signed did not have a date to end the fixed term so when [The landlord/s] sent the agreement to them on 10 April with a date, they were very surprised. f. They had not been given a copy of the agreement prior to 10 April. g. They submit that as [The landlord/s] didn’t lodge the bond, did not give them a copy of the agreement and put the tenancy address as her address for service, she is not credible.
[The landlord/s] says they all signed an agreement for a fixed term. In support of this she provides the tenancy agreement and says: a. She advertised for a long-term tenancy. b. She drafted a fixed-term tenancy for a year with the dates which they both signed. c. She did not cross out the ‘fixed term’ section. d. The agreement uses a mix of caps and lower case. e. The tenants took pictures of the agreement, and she took the original and gave them a further copy when they moved in. f. They aren’t honest because they said were leaving due to health issues but were actually going overseas. g. It is a very detailed agreement therefore she would not omit a crucial section. h. They never requested a copy of the agreement which they would have if they actually did not have one.
As discussed at the hearing I have to ascertain whether or not the date 19 February 2025 was added post signing or at the time of signing. There is therefore a conflict of evidence, which is not uncommon in cases of this kind. My role is accordingly to assess the evidence and determine which situation is established to the requisite standard; the civil standard of balance of probabilities.
The relevant section of the tenancy agreement is as follows:
It does appear to me that the writing is slightly different with both sets of dates. Further, neither the periodic nor the fixed term section is struck out. The majority of the rest of the agreement is written in CAPs although some sections are written in lower case.
[The landlord/s] has breached the RTA. She has not provided the correct address on the tenancy agreement, failed to lodge the bond and I accept the tenants’ evidence that she did not give them a copy of the tenancy agreement.
Despite this, having considered the evidence very carefully I find it more likely than not that the parties did agree to a fixed term tenancy. The tenancy agreement is detailed and had it been intended to be a periodic term I find it more likely than not that the landlord would have crossed out the fixed-term section. I accept [The landlord/s] evidence that she did not retrospectively amend the agreement.
I consider it likely that [The landlord/s] did not provide the tenants with a copy of the agreement when it was signed which is in breach of the RTA and has resulted in this confusion when the tenants wanted to leave. I find it likely that the tenants wanted a periodic tenancy but signed for a fixed term and as they didn’t have the agreement to check, assumed they had signed a periodic agreement.
Accordingly, the tenants were not entitled to just give notice to end the tenancy, they were required to come to an agreement with [The landlord/s] to that end. Question 2: How should the bond be apportioned?
The tenants say [The landlord/s] did not lodge the bond in breach of her obligations pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the RTA. They left the property clean and tidy and as such wish all their bond to be returned to them.
[The landlord/s] says the tenants left with rent arrears and leaving the oven and a cupboard dirty. She seeks the following from the bond: a. Rent arrears for four weeks: $2,720 until a new tenancy commenced on 30 May. b. Cleaning costs of $179. c. Advertising costs for a new tenant $250 from 18 April.
She agrees she forgot to lodge the bond but says she had no intent to breach the law and said it was due to difficult circumstances at the time. She says the tenants were not prejudiced by this failure because it was lodged prior to the end of the tenancy.
The evidence indicates that the bond was lodged on 8 April, the day [The landlord/s] told the tenants they could not break their fixed term tenancy early. Rent arrears
[The tenant/s] say they saw people living in the house shortly after they vacated, therefore they question [The landlord/s] evidence that she could not find replacement tenants util 30 May.
[The landlord/s] was asked to provide confirmation of the new tenancy dates and was given time after the hearing to do that. She has failed to do so although she has provided the cleaning invoice which is dated 21 May. Accordingly, I must accept the tenants’ evidence that they saw people living in the property shortly after they vacated. In saying that, there is no date stamp on the photo, so it is unclear when the photo of the property was taken.
Given the tenants were liable for rent until the replacement tenancy was secured, I find it just that they pay compensation to the equivalent of one week’s rent: $680. [The landlord/s] only commenced advertising on 18 April, and I find it unlikely she would find replacement tenants in less than three weeks from that date.
In saying that, I have reduced the amount [The landlord/s] would otherwise have been entitled to on the basis that she has breached the RTA by failing to lodge the bond, provide the tenancy agreement to the tenants and complete her address on the agreement. [The landlord/s] is fortunate that the tenants did not seek exemplary damages for her breaches which have aggravated the situation. I therefore do not consider it just that she be entitled to the full amount of compensation she seeks.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. Cleaning
[The landlord/s] says the oven and a cupboard were unclean when the tenants vacated. She says she did some cleaning and so did contractors; it is their costs she seeks reimbursement of now. She relies on the ingoing inspection which does not note any cleanliness issues. She did not wish to see them at the inspection or after due to the break down in their relationship.
[Tenant 1] was a professional cleaner and says they left the home clean. He says they asked for [The landlord/s] to come and do the inspection with them, but she did not. They say they had to do a deep clean when they moved in and left the property in the same state, if not cleaner at the end.
[Tenant 2] was also a cleaner and says they left the property clean and tidy. He further says [The landlord/s] should have given them the opportunity to clean after they left if she was not happy.
The tenant's statutory obligation 1 is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Both parties provided photos and on the basis of them I am satisfied there was some mould left in the bottom of the cupboard and some mess in the bottom of the oven however the areas are very small. No photos were provided of the property at the commencement of the tenancy therefore it has not been established that these areas were left any worse than they were at the commencement.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and as such this claim is dismissed. Advertising costs
[The landlord/s] claims the cost of advertising on TradeMe for replacement tenants. I find the tenants liable for this cost as they broke the fixed term tenancy early. 2
The tenants did provide some alternative tenant options, but I accept [The landlord/s] evidence that those applicants did not meet the credit or history checks. 1 Pursuant to section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA 2 S44A RTA Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.
Both parties seek suppression and as both were partly successful in their positions, I approve both applications for suppression. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873241 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873241 — Mould & damp

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