What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873800 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 4873800?

Cleaning: $675.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Carpet Reattach: $100.00 awarded to landlord; To Bedroom Door Latch: $100.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873800?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10600137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873800 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 4873800?

Cleaning: $675.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Carpet Reattach: $100.00 awarded to landlord; To Bedroom Door Latch: $100.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873800?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10600137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873800 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873800 — net $1,223.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace smoke alarms	$40.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: to Walls	$200.00	Repairs: to Walls
Repairs: to Bedroom door latch	$100.00	Repairs: to Bedroom door latch
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: and carpet cleaning	$675.00	Cleaning: and carpet cleaning
Repairs: Carpet reattach	$100.00	Repairs: Carpet reattach
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,223.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,223.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,223.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Replace smoke alarms$40.00 Repairs: to Walls$200.00 Repairs: to Bedroom door latch$100.00 Rubbish removal$400.00 Cleaning: and carpet cleaning$675.00 Repairs: Carpet reattach$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,535.44 Bond$312.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,223.44
The tenant must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $15.00 per week.
The first payment must be made on Wednesday 31 July 2024 and payments must continue every Wednesday until the debt is paid in full.
If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for reimbursement of late settlement penalties and moving costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Senior Tenancy Coordinator 1], attended for the applicant landlord and the tenant [The tenant/s] attended with support from a friend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant rented premises from the landlord who is a social housing provider. The landlord in turn leased the premises from the owner.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 4 January 2024, the date the tenancy ended, and instead vacated on 10 January 2024.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act.
The landlord claimed that the premises were sold by the owner and as a result of the tenant failing to vacate there was a late settlement resulting in the owner incurring settlement penalty costs and also moving costs as the owner paid for the tenant’s moving costs. The owner claimed these costs from the landlord who is now seeking reimbursement from the tenant.
In support of the claim the landlord provided: a) A copy of a 120-day notice to vacate dated 7 September 2023 issued to the landlord by the owner’s agent pursuant to the commercial lease stating that “We have received notice from the owners of the above property that they wish to gain vacant possession of the premises”. Notice was given to vacate by 4 January 2024. b) A copy of a 63-day notice to vacate dated 3 November 2023 addressed to the tenant stating “We have received notice from the owners of the above property that they wish to gain vacant possession of the premises to move back into the property themselves”. The notice is issued by [Tenancy Coordinator 2]. The vacate date is 4 January 2024. c) A copy of a settlement statement in respect of the sale dated 7 December 2023. d) A copy of an invoice to the landlord from the owner’s agent for a penalty charge in the sum of $1250 dated 20 March 2024. e) A copy of a mover’s invoice from [a moving company] dated 10 January 2024 in the sum of $1173.00.
The tenant disputed liability for any costs associated with the delay in moving and in response stated the following: a) The landlord did not give the correct amount of notice days to terminate the tenancy. b) The landlord was supposed to assist the tenant in finding alternative accommodation and did not do this in time.
[Senior Tenancy Coordinator 1], stated that she did not have information today to explain why a 63 day notice had been issued.
The parties agreed that the tenant was provided with alternative accommodation with the same social service provider which she moved in to on 10 January 2024.The landlord paid the moving costs.
Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has a reasonable excuse for failing to vacate the premises as the landlord is required to give 90 days’ notice if the owner is required to give vacant possession under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises and only 63 days’ notice was given. See section 51(2)(b) of the RTA. The notice was therefore defective.
For the above reasons I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the penalty costs associated with a delay in settlement of the sale.
Although it is usual for tenants to pay the cost of moving, I find that in these circumstances it is appropriate that the landlord pays the tenant’s moving costs as detailed in the invoice provided.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord sought reimbursement of half of the cleaning invoice as some extra vacate cleaning was done. The tenant had a dog and the landlord sought reimbursement for carpet cleaning also.
The tenant claimed that the landlord said that they would arrange the cleaning so she did not clean. She agreed that she had a dog at the premises but said they were an outside dog.
The tenant agreed that some rubbish was left at the premises but disputed that all of it was hers. The parties agreed to the tenant paying half the rubbish removal charges in the sum of $400.00.
A smoke alarm was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant stated she removed it to replace the battery, but it was not reinstated.
The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and an invoice were provided.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is recorded in the tenancy agreement as $500.00.
The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. I will consider each claim in turn: a) Damage to paintwork on walls – the landlord provided before and after photographs showing marks to the paintwork in the premises and sought compensation. The cost to remedy was $1000.00 but the landlord did not seek the full amount be reimbursed. The tenant agreed that there had been some wall damage due to nails and small holes in the walls but disputed the large damage mark on the bedroom wall. The tenant claimed that this damage was caused as a result of dampness below the window as it did not seal properly. This statement was supported by a 14-day notice from the tenant and the entry inspection report referring to the windowsill deteriorating in the corner. Having considered the evidence I find that there is some damage to walls beyond fair wear and tear but the tenant has disproved liability for the damage below the bedroom window. I order the tenant to pay the sum of $200.00 towards wall repairs. b) Damage to doors – the landlord claimed that bedroom 1 and 3 doors were damaged and sought the cost of replacement in the sum of $700.00. The tenant claimed that the doors were damaged prior to the tenancy commencing. The incoming inspection report records that bedroom 1 door has existing damage but there is no record of pre-existing damage to bedroom 3 door. The exit inspection photographs record damage to the latch of bedroom 1 door. The tenant is ordered to pay the amount of $100.00 towards the latch repair. c) Missing kitchen skirting – there was a piece of skirting missing in the kitchen. The tenant claimed that this was removed when the floor was replaced due to holes and was not reinstated by the contractor who repaired the floor. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the missing skirting. d) Missing curtains and nets – the landlord withdrew this claim. e) Missing bedroom door stoppers – there was insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant is responsible for missing door stops. The entry inspection report does not show that door stops were present. f) Damage to fence – the entry inspection report photographs show that the fence was old and damaged at the beginning of the tenancy. There was further damage recorded in the exit photographs, but I am not satisfied this is beyond fair wear and tear given the entry condition of the fence. g) Carpet damage – the landlord claimed that the carpet was damaged, in particular that the carpet had lifted in one corner of the lounge. The application sought the sum of $1000.00 towards carpet replacement but the only evidence pointed to by the applicant was photographs of the lifted corner. The amount of $100.00 is ordered towards reattachment of the lifted carpet. Suppression and filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [The landlord/s] has applied for suppression. Both parties have had some success with the proceedings today. Having considered the factors in this case and the interests of the parties the Tribunal grants suppression of all identifying details.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the filing fee is to be reimbursed by the tenant.
At the end of today’s hearing the tenant indicated that a claim may be filed. If this is done the case may be referred back to me.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873800 — net $1,223.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace smoke alarms	$40.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: to Walls	$200.00	Repairs: to Walls
Repairs: to Bedroom door latch	$100.00	Repairs: to Bedroom door latch
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: and carpet cleaning	$675.00	Cleaning: and carpet cleaning
Repairs: Carpet reattach	$100.00	Repairs: Carpet reattach
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,223.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,223.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,223.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Replace smoke alarms$40.00 Repairs: to Walls$200.00 Repairs: to Bedroom door latch$100.00 Rubbish removal$400.00 Cleaning: and carpet cleaning$675.00 Repairs: Carpet reattach$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,535.44 Bond$312.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,223.44
The tenant must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $15.00 per week.
The first payment must be made on Wednesday 31 July 2024 and payments must continue every Wednesday until the debt is paid in full.
If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for reimbursement of late settlement penalties and moving costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Senior Tenancy Coordinator 1], attended for the applicant landlord and the tenant [The tenant/s] attended with support from a friend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant rented premises from the landlord who is a social housing provider. The landlord in turn leased the premises from the owner.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 4 January 2024, the date the tenancy ended, and instead vacated on 10 January 2024.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act.
The landlord claimed that the premises were sold by the owner and as a result of the tenant failing to vacate there was a late settlement resulting in the owner incurring settlement penalty costs and also moving costs as the owner paid for the tenant’s moving costs. The owner claimed these costs from the landlord who is now seeking reimbursement from the tenant.
In support of the claim the landlord provided: a) A copy of a 120-day notice to vacate dated 7 September 2023 issued to the landlord by the owner’s agent pursuant to the commercial lease stating that “We have received notice from the owners of the above property that they wish to gain vacant possession of the premises”. Notice was given to vacate by 4 January 2024. b) A copy of a 63-day notice to vacate dated 3 November 2023 addressed to the tenant stating “We have received notice from the owners of the above property that they wish to gain vacant possession of the premises to move back into the property themselves”. The notice is issued by [Tenancy Coordinator 2]. The vacate date is 4 January 2024. c) A copy of a settlement statement in respect of the sale dated 7 December 2023. d) A copy of an invoice to the landlord from the owner’s agent for a penalty charge in the sum of $1250 dated 20 March 2024. e) A copy of a mover’s invoice from [a moving company] dated 10 January 2024 in the sum of $1173.00.
The tenant disputed liability for any costs associated with the delay in moving and in response stated the following: a) The landlord did not give the correct amount of notice days to terminate the tenancy. b) The landlord was supposed to assist the tenant in finding alternative accommodation and did not do this in time.
[Senior Tenancy Coordinator 1], stated that she did not have information today to explain why a 63 day notice had been issued.
The parties agreed that the tenant was provided with alternative accommodation with the same social service provider which she moved in to on 10 January 2024.The landlord paid the moving costs.
Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has a reasonable excuse for failing to vacate the premises as the landlord is required to give 90 days’ notice if the owner is required to give vacant possession under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises and only 63 days’ notice was given. See section 51(2)(b) of the RTA. The notice was therefore defective.
For the above reasons I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the penalty costs associated with a delay in settlement of the sale.
Although it is usual for tenants to pay the cost of moving, I find that in these circumstances it is appropriate that the landlord pays the tenant’s moving costs as detailed in the invoice provided.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord sought reimbursement of half of the cleaning invoice as some extra vacate cleaning was done. The tenant had a dog and the landlord sought reimbursement for carpet cleaning also.
The tenant claimed that the landlord said that they would arrange the cleaning so she did not clean. She agreed that she had a dog at the premises but said they were an outside dog.
The tenant agreed that some rubbish was left at the premises but disputed that all of it was hers. The parties agreed to the tenant paying half the rubbish removal charges in the sum of $400.00.
A smoke alarm was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant stated she removed it to replace the battery, but it was not reinstated.
The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and an invoice were provided.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is recorded in the tenancy agreement as $500.00.
The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. I will consider each claim in turn: a) Damage to paintwork on walls – the landlord provided before and after photographs showing marks to the paintwork in the premises and sought compensation. The cost to remedy was $1000.00 but the landlord did not seek the full amount be reimbursed. The tenant agreed that there had been some wall damage due to nails and small holes in the walls but disputed the large damage mark on the bedroom wall. The tenant claimed that this damage was caused as a result of dampness below the window as it did not seal properly. This statement was supported by a 14-day notice from the tenant and the entry inspection report referring to the windowsill deteriorating in the corner. Having considered the evidence I find that there is some damage to walls beyond fair wear and tear but the tenant has disproved liability for the damage below the bedroom window. I order the tenant to pay the sum of $200.00 towards wall repairs. b) Damage to doors – the landlord claimed that bedroom 1 and 3 doors were damaged and sought the cost of replacement in the sum of $700.00. The tenant claimed that the doors were damaged prior to the tenancy commencing. The incoming inspection report records that bedroom 1 door has existing damage but there is no record of pre-existing damage to bedroom 3 door. The exit inspection photographs record damage to the latch of bedroom 1 door. The tenant is ordered to pay the amount of $100.00 towards the latch repair. c) Missing kitchen skirting – there was a piece of skirting missing in the kitchen. The tenant claimed that this was removed when the floor was replaced due to holes and was not reinstated by the contractor who repaired the floor. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the missing skirting. d) Missing curtains and nets – the landlord withdrew this claim. e) Missing bedroom door stoppers – there was insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant is responsible for missing door stops. The entry inspection report does not show that door stops were present. f) Damage to fence – the entry inspection report photographs show that the fence was old and damaged at the beginning of the tenancy. There was further damage recorded in the exit photographs, but I am not satisfied this is beyond fair wear and tear given the entry condition of the fence. g) Carpet damage – the landlord claimed that the carpet was damaged, in particular that the carpet had lifted in one corner of the lounge. The application sought the sum of $1000.00 towards carpet replacement but the only evidence pointed to by the applicant was photographs of the lifted corner. The amount of $100.00 is ordered towards reattachment of the lifted carpet. Suppression and filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [The landlord/s] has applied for suppression. Both parties have had some success with the proceedings today. Having considered the factors in this case and the interests of the parties the Tribunal grants suppression of all identifying details.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the filing fee is to be reimbursed by the tenant.
At the end of today’s hearing the tenant indicated that a claim may be filed. If this is done the case may be referred back to me.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873800 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873800 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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