How much money was awarded in case 4875780?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Order: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Service Fee: $980.38 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Furniture Removal: $318.55 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $501.40 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/05/24 To 18/06/24: $168.75 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/06/24 To 18/07/24: $168.75 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/07/24 To 18/08/24: $168.75 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/08/24 To 18/09/24: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs And Padlock Deposit (1…: $218.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875780?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10776996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4875780?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Order: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Service Fee: $980.38 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Furniture Removal: $318.55 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $501.40 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/05/24 To 18/06/24: $168.75 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/06/24 To 18/07/24: $168.75 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/07/24 To 18/08/24: $168.75 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs (19/08/24 To 18/09/24: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs And Padlock Deposit (1…: $218.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875780?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10776996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4875780 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875780 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875780 — net $720.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Eviction order	$200.00	Eviction order
Storage costs and padlock deposit (19/04/24 to 18/05/24	$218.75	Storage costs and padlock deposit (19/04/24 to 18/05/24
Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24	$168.75	Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24
Storage costs (19/06/24 to 18/07/24	$168.75	Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24
Storage costs (19/07/24 to 18/08/24	$168.75	Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24
Storage costs (19/08/24 to 18/09/24	$225.00	Storage costs (19/08/24 to 18/09/24
Furniture removal	$318.55	Furniture removal
Lock/key replacement	$501.40	Lock/key replacement
Eviction service fee	$980.38	Eviction service fee
Lawns and Garden work	$109.25	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.02

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression the Landlord’s names and identifying details.

[The tenants] must pay [The landlord] $720.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord] immediately.

[The landlord] must take any personal documents belonging to the tenants, that have been left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.

The landlord shall dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenants by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.

The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $720.02.

[The landlord] must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 July 2024.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have not made their own cross application, but in their pleadings they seek their property to be returned to their Whitianga address at the landlord’s cost, $4,667.58 to be returned to them, that they claim the landlord has unlawfully withheld from rent they paid in advance, and $100,000.00 in exemplary damages for the use of their money and for 5 months loss use of their furniture. The tenants say the landlord took payment for an $8.00 international bank fee and $99.24 for water rates arrears from the advanced rent money.

The tenants claims cannot be addressed by me in this hearing, as no separate application has been made by the tenants for this counter claim. If they want to pursue these claims, they will have to make a separate application to the Tribunal. It is of note that use of money interest is not a remedy open to the Tribunal to award. Background

The tenants fixed term tenancy commenced on 1 July 2023 and was set to end on 5 July 2024.

The landlord applied on 20 October 2023 for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water arrears and refund of the bond.

The landlord filed a further application on 29 November 2023 for rent arrears.

On 14 February 2024, the Tribunal heard both landlord applications together.

On 19 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order for conditional termination of the tenancy, payment of rent and water arrears as follows: “[2]. Adelaide Charlotte Lane and William Royce Lane owes [Landlord’s name suppressed] $10,340.39 (“the debt”) calculated as shown in the table below: Description Landlord Rent arrears and rent owed to 23 February 2024 $9,913.45 Water rates to 12/02/2024 $406.50 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $10,340.39 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $10,340.39 “[3]. Adelaide Charlotte Lane and William Royce Lane must pay rent and the debt as follows: a.By payment of $11070.39 on Tuesday 27 February 2024 being $10340.39 for the debt and $730.00 for the weekly rent due on Saturday 24 February 2024. b. Weekly rent payments in advance of $730.00 commencing Monday 4 March 2024 and continuing each Monday until 27 May 2024. [4]. Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, water arrears and the filing fee. [5]. If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at [tenancy addressed suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately. [6]. If the tenant fails to pay the water debt and filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, they will be payable immediately. [7]. The conditional termination order will lapse on 30 May 2024 if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986”.

The 19 February 2024 Order records at [5] “The tenants want to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination” and at [19] “The landlord consented to a conditional termination order being made.”

On 23 February 2024, the tenants made a payment of $11,800.39. This was $30.00 more than what they were required to pay under [3(a)] of the Tribunal’s 14 February 2024 Order.

Pursuant to the [3(a)] of the Tribunal’s 19 February 2024 Order, weekly rent payments in advance of $730.00 had to be made by the tenant’s commencing Monday 4 March 2024 and continuing each Monday until 27 May 2024.

The tenants did not make the required $730.00 payments on 4, 11 and 18 March 2024. This was a clear breach of the Tribunal’s 19 February 2024 conditional termination order.

The landlord confirmed, 2 working days after the third breach (20 March 2024), it made an application to the Ministry of Justice for an eviction warrant, and a bailiff to carry out the eviction warrant. It was legally entitled to do so, as the tenants had breached three of the conditions set out in the 19 February 2024 conditional termination Order.

On 21 March 2024, the tenants made a payment of $9,830.75 to the landlord, for rent in advance.

On the morning of 27 March 2024, a bailiff carried out the eviction warrant.

The tenants objected to being evicted as, at the time the eviction warrant was carried out, they were significantly in advance of their rent obligations and considered the termination of their tenancy to be unlawful.

The tenants, in breaching their obligations to pay $730.00 rent in advance within 2 working days of 4, 11 and 18 March 2024had breached three conditions of the conditional termination order in succession. The landlord was legally entitled to implement the eviction order.

The tenants were evicted in the morning of 27 March 2024 and had to leave the premise immediately. They sought permission to return to the premise that evening to collect some urgent personal items. This request was granted, and the tenants were given 10 minutes access from 6:30pm to 6:40pm. They say they had to sleep in their car as the landlord had their money and they had nowhere else to go.

The tenants remaining possessions were left at the premise, and they were unable to access the premise to take possession of their belongings.

On 2 April 2024, the landlord sent the tenants a text message asking them to remove their possessions by 4 April 2024, to complete the cleaning of the premise.

On 2 April 2024, the tenants requested access to the premise the following day to collect more of their belongings, by sending an email to [Landlord agent 1 name is suppressed] and a text to [Landlord agent 2 name is suppressed].

[Landlord agent 2 name is suppressed] says she went to the premise the following day, 3 April 2024, at 3:21pm and waited for the tenants to remove some of their possessions. Her notes say she carried out an exit inspection at 5:30pm and that she noted the tenants driving passed the premise at 6:08pm and that they took a photograph of her car in front of the house. [Landlord agent 2 name is suppressed] says she offered to let the tenants stay longer at the premise, but they rejected that offer. She also says she offered to return to the premise the next day so they could remove more of their possessions. She confirmed the tenants rejected this offer and stated they were going to be out of Auckland until 18 April 2024.

The tenants informed the landlord they were out of Auckland from 4 April 2024 and proposed they collect their belongings on 18 April 2024. The landlord says it was concerned that the new tenants may want to move in before 18 April 2024 and that time was of the essence to get the property ready for them to be able to move in. The landlord says further that delays in getting the premise re- let was going to cost the tenants $730.00 per week.

On 4 April 2024, [Landlord agent 2 name is suppressed] sent the tenants a letter outlining the landlord’s abandoned good procedure as the landlord was becoming concerned that the tenants were not going to remove all of their possessions out of the premise until after 18 April 2024, and the landlord needed to prepare the premise to be re-rented as it was losing rent as a result of the eviction, and wanted to mitigate its loss as well as the loss of the tenants who were legally liable for rent until either the new tenants commenced tenancy of the premise, or 5 July 2024, whichever was earliest. This letter informs the tenants they have been given every opportunity to collect their possessions and puts them on notice that the landlord has to store their belongings for at least 35 days, pursuant to s62 of the RTA, and that they will be now be liable for the storage and transportation costs and that these costs will continue to accrue until the tenants collect their possessions or the landlord applies for a disposal order.

Below is an excerpt from that 4 April 2024 letter.

On 4 April 2024, the landlord had the house cleaned, the lawns mowed, the gardens tidied and the tenants belongings moved into the garage. The landlord says it delayed moving the tenants belongings off the property to give them more time to collect these belongings without incurring storage costs. That way the landlord could start the reletting process, but did not have to move the tenants belongings into a separate storage facility until just before the new tenants tenancy was to commence.

On 8 April 2024, the Tribunal granted the tenants a reconsideration hearing, in response to their application for a rehearing of the matters considered at the 19 February 2024 hearing. As the eviction had already occurred, the Tribunal ordered that the remainder of the 19 February 2024 Order be stayed and not enforced until after the rehearing consideration hearing. This meant the landlord could not enforce the payment of any of the monies awarded in the 19 February 2024 Order until after the rehearing consideration hearing. The tenants took this to mean the landlord could not remove their belongings from the premise and into storage and that it had to leave the tenants belongings in the house untouched until the tenants agreed a date and time to collected them. This is not legally correct. Disposal and/or storage of the tenants belongings were not claims decided in the 19 February 2024 Order and the landlord cannot be estopped by the Tribunal from enforcing orders that have not been made.

The landlord’s rights and obligations in regard to “Goods left on premises on termination of tenancy” are set out in section 62 of the RTA. The stay of enforcement proceedings in the Tribunal’s 8 April 2024 Order does not prevent the landlord from taking the steps outlined in 62 of the RTA. Can the landlord remove the tenants’ belongings/goods from the premise and pass on the costs to the tenant?

Section 62 of the RTA confirms: (1)Where, on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant leaves on the premises foodstuffs or other perishable goods, the landlord may, immediately after taking possession of the premises, dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (2)If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3)If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and must deal with the other goods either— (a)in accordance with section 62A; or (b)by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B. (3A)However, if tests carried out in accordance with a relevant prescribed method have established that the premises are contaminated, and regulations under this Act prescribe a process (and associated duties) for dealing with the goods, subsection (3) does not apply and those regulations must instead be complied with. (4)In this section, premises includes facilities

On 10 April 2024, the tenants confirmed to the landlord that they “are suing for damages” and that they “have proposed that we can uplift our non-perishable chattels and property on 18 April 2024, but we failed to obtained a related answer from you, so agreement could be reached as required under section 62(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986”. In this letter, the tenants caution the landlord about not misappropriating the rent they have paid in advance for any other purpose than applying the monies to the payment of rent. The landlord, in its letter of 4 April 2024, had expressly addressed the tenants request to delay collection of their belongings to 18 April 2024. So to claim it had not responded to the tenant’s request is factually incorrect.

On 19 April 2024, the tenants wrote to the landlord informing it that they revoke their offer to collect their belongings on 18 April 2024 and claims that the Tribunal’s 8 April 2024 Order prevents either party addressing the issue of removal of the tenants belongings from the rental premise until after the 24 April 2024 rehearing consideration hearing.

On 19 April 2024, the tenants’ belongings were moved into a storage facility, as the new tenants tenancy was due to commence on 21 April 2024.

On 24 April 2024, the tenants rehearing application was dismissed, and the 19 February 2024 Order was upheld and able to be enforced.

From 24 April 2024 to 25 June 2024, no agreement was reached with the tenants in regard to collecting their belongings from the storage facility and the tenants continue to refute liability for storage and transportation costs as they say they never agreed to the landlord incurring these costs on their behalf and the landlord should have left their belongings in the rental premise until the tenants agreed to collect them.

The tenants have been in contact with the storage facility. The landlord stated the tenants had told the storage facility manager on 2 May 2024, the tenants would come to collect their belongings soon. Based on this promise, the landlord gave authority for the storage facility owner to give a key to the tenants to the lockup, where their belongings are stored, so they could come and collect them. When they did not do so, the storage facility made a decision that the landlord was the only party legally entitled to grant access to the storage facility and insisted the landlord give the tenants access when they tenants confirmed to the landlord they wanted to collect their belongings.

On 25 June 2024, the tenant wrote to the landlord and requesting the landlord have the tenants’ belongings transported to the tenants new address in Whitianga at the landlord’s cost and requires the landlord to confirm a delivery date within 48 hours. The landlord did not agree to incur this expense and it is not legally required to do so.

During the 19 July 2024 hearing, the tenants confirmed they want to collect their belongings but consider doing so will condone what they see as the landlords unlawful conduct. The tenants say they are taking further legal action against the landlord and until these civil proceedings are concluded, the tenants are blocked from collecting their belongings.

I am satisfied the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to contact the tenants and to try to reach agreement on a date and time for the tenants to collect their goods.

I find the tenants have been resistant to reaching an agreement to collect their belongings as they believe that doing so will condone what they see as the landlord’s unlawful acts by evicting them when their rent was paid in advance for months and then making what they say are unlawful deductions from that advanced rent money. The tenants’ requirement for the landlord to have left their belongings in the rental premise until the tenants agreed to collect them is unreasonable. It would, if the landlord had agreed to this, meant the tenants would have continued to be liable for payment of $730.00 per week rent until the premise was cleared of the tenants’ belongings. This would have been a failure of both parties to take reasonable steps mitigate their losses.

The law is clear, where the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a period for collection of the tenants goods the landlord must: a. Store the tenants personal documents securely; and b. Must deal with the other goods either: i. in accordance with section 62A; or ii. by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B.

The tenants’ goods have a value above the cost of storage, so the landlord has been required to store the tenants belongings for at least 35 days. It has done so.

A landlord who secures the tenants goods left at the premise at the end of the tenancy does not unlawfully seize the tenants’ goods as security for rent or other debts owed by the tenant.

If, after 35 days the tenants good remain unclaimed, the landlord must continue to secure the goods in safe storage to await claims by the tenant or can take the tenants personal documents to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for these and then sell the other goods by public auction or private contract at a reasonable market price. After the sale of goods, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for an order stating the amount (if any) owed to the landlord out of the proceeds of sale and the remainder of the money is to be paid into the Bond Centre. The costs of storage, transportation and sale of goods reasonably incurred by the landlord, can be deducted from the proceeds of sale.

At any time within one year after sale by the landlord, or under an order by the Tribunal, the tenants may apply to the Bond Centre for payment to the tenants of the proceeds of sale in the Residential Tenancies Trust account.

On 28 August 2024, the landlord sent an email to the tenants stating that if the tenants have not collected their belongings from the storage facility by 10 September 2024, the landlord will donate these belongings to the City Mission.

The tenants have been billed for storage of their belongings to 18 September 2024. If the tenants have not collected their belongings by 10 September 2024, the landlord may dispose of the tenants’ belongings that are of no saleable value in any way it choses and may sell anything that is of a higher saleable value than it would cost the landlord to engage a contractor to sell on its behalf. The costs of selling these goods or disposing of them can be deducted from the proceeds of sale.

I also find the packing, transportation and storage costs that have incurred by the landlord are reasonable and have been incurred due to the tenant’s unreasonable refusal to agree a date and time to collect these goods in a reasonable timeframe following the end of the tenancy. These costs claimed by the landlord have been awarded to it.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not leave the lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy state.

The landlord had to change the locks and have new keys cut because of the eviction process and incurred other eviction related costs.

The amounts claimed are ordered and are proved by the landlord. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

The tenants did not make an application during the 19 July 2024 hearing for their names and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenants did request at the original hearing, on 19 February 2024, for their names and identifying details to be suppressed and the Tribunal granted this request.

I am not satisfied that any duress publishing the tenants’ names could result in, when they apply for future tenancies, because of their names being published outweighs the public interest in this matter, given the tenants conduct post the rehearing consideration hearing on 24 April 2024. I therefore decline to use my discretion to grant them suppression of their names and identifying details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875780 — net $720.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Eviction order	$200.00	Eviction order
Storage costs and padlock deposit (19/04/24 to 18/05/24	$218.75	Storage costs and padlock deposit (19/04/24 to 18/05/24
Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24	$168.75	Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24
Storage costs (19/06/24 to 18/07/24	$168.75	Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24
Storage costs (19/07/24 to 18/08/24	$168.75	Storage costs (19/05/24 to 18/06/24
Storage costs (19/08/24 to 18/09/24	$225.00	Storage costs (19/08/24 to 18/09/24
Furniture removal	$318.55	Furniture removal
Lock/key replacement	$501.40	Lock/key replacement
Eviction service fee	$980.38	Eviction service fee
Lawns and Garden work	$109.25	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.02