What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877243 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 4877243?

Break Lease Fees: $563.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,014.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877243?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457197-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877243 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 4877243?

Break Lease Fees: $563.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,014.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877243?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457197-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36C Elmira Avenue, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877243 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877243 — net $3,021.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,014.28	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$350.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$92.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$330.00	Lawns and Garden work
Break lease fees	$563.85	Break lease fees
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,021.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,021.32

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877243 — net $3,021.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,014.28	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$350.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$92.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$330.00	Lawns and Garden work
Break lease fees	$563.85	Break lease fees
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,021.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,021.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 36C Elmira Avenue, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm 6 June 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (3662995-003) to Watson Real Estate Limited Watson Integrity immediately.
[The tenants] must pay Watson Real Estate Limited Watson Integrity $3,021.32 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears $5,014.28 Cleaning$350.75 Rubbish removal$92.00 Lawns and Garden work$330.00 Break lease fees$563.85 Carpet Cleaning$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$6,621.32 Bond$3,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,021.32

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenants attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy, compensation for a failure to maintain the property and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), and refund of the bond.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Agreed claims
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for: a. Cleaning $350.75. b. Rubbish removal $92.00. c. The fee charged and detailed for breaking the fixed term $563.85.
These amounts are therefore awarded to the landlord. Disputed landlord claims for compensation
The landlord made further claims for: a. Lawnmowing and weed spraying $330.00. b. Carpet stain removal $502.00. c. Damage to a living room curtain mechanism $155.00.
The tenants’ obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the lawns and gardens, unless they are excluded in the tenancy agreement.
Section 3 of the tenancy agreement provides that lawns are the responsibility of the tenant. The tenants accepted responsibility for the lawns being mown twice as claimed by the landlord. Section 3 also provides that “Gardens are the Tenant’s responsibilities, trees are the responsibility of the Landlord”.
The landlord has claimed for the cost of spraying weeds around the property, especially the large, gravelled areas. The landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of these areas at the time the tenants vacated the property.
The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was responsible for the removal of the weeds and the Tribunal accepts that the amount charged by the landlord’s contractor for lawnmowing and weed spraying is fair and reasonable. The sum claimed by the landlord is proven.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of two stains to the carpet: one in the entrance way and one in the lounge. The landlord believes that they were caused by the presence of a pot plant or the spilling of a dark, brown liquid. The landlord engaged a carpet cleaner who was able to remove the stain in the entrance way but could not remove the lounge stain. Another contractor was engaged and he was able to remove the stain in the lounge.
The tenants denied causing either stain. They believe that the stain in the lounge was caused by the ingress of water through a firewood hatch during a storm. They denied causing the stain in the entrance way because they removed their footwear upon entering the property.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the stain in the lounge was caused by the tenants. It is possible that it was caused by the ingress of moisture from outside.
However, in the absence of any plausible explanation for its appearance during the tenancy, it appears to be more likely than not that the stain in the entrance way was caused by the tenants, their children or their invitee during the tenancy.
It is appropriate to award the landlord approximately one half of the sums claimed.
The landlord claimed that the mechanism to open the curtains over an external door in the living room was damaged by the tenants. The landlord gave evidence that the landlord’s contractor believed it was damaged by the improper use of the mechanism or by the tenants drawing the curtain manually.
The tenants deny damaging the curtain and believe that the mechanism’s failure was fair wear and tear.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that it simply failed due to fair wear and tear. Without evidence of the misuse which the landlord claims caused the mechanism to be broken, the landlord’s claim must fail and is dismissed. Tenants’ claim to break the fixed term tenancy
The parties signed a fixed term tenancy starting on 29 January 2024 and ending on 28 January 2025. This means that in signing the tenancy agreement they signed a contract with a total liability of $46,800.00, being the year’s total rent.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy under section 66 RTA.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly and it is only in limited circumstances that a Court or Tribunal will interfere with it. There is a high threshold to be met before this Tribunal will reduce a fixed term.
In particular, the tenants need to establish that: a. There has been a change in their circumstances. b. The change was unforeseen. c. The unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced. d. The severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) RTA provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The tenants explained that they had moved to New Zealand to start a new life. Unfortunately, two significant events occurred shortly after their arrival. Firstly, one of the tenant’s parents died; and secondly, the income-earning tenant found the conditions in his place of work intolerable and his contract was ended by mutual agreement. The tenants gave evidence that these two events had significant impacts on their mental health. In addition, they had no income from which to pay the rent.
The tenants contacted the landlord on 3 April 2024 and advised that they wished to break the fixed term tenancy as they were returning to their home country. They left New Zealand four days later on 7 April 2024. The tenants were therefore in occupation for ten weeks of a 52 week fixed term contract.
The Tribunal accepts that there has been a change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The Tribunal further accepts that the change was unforeseen in that the tenants did not sell up their possessions and relocate their family with any expectation that the employment would prove so seriously unsatisfactory that the tenants believed they had no option but to end the employment relationship and return home.
The tenants explained that employment in their home country was sporadic and that the result of their ill-fated attempt at moving to New Zealand has been financially significant.
The landlord provided evidence that the property is mortgaged, that they live overseas where they rent a property, and that they rely on the rent to fund the property’s outgoings.
The landlord advised that the property was listed for rent on the day the tenants advised her that they intended leaving. She explained that while there was plenty of interest in the property, none of the tenants who applied to rent it passed her standard vetting procedure. She advised that the rent was reduced and has now been let on a short-term basis to a neighbour from 7 June 2024.
The tenants must show that they would suffer severe hardship if the term was not reduced and that severe hardship must be greater than the (ordinary) hardship which would otherwise be suffered by the landlord.
This element requires the Tribunal to balance the hardships faced by both parties. Thus, an applicant tenant may face financial difficulties in not being able to pay the rent because of an unforeseen change in his or her circumstances, but the landlord may have a mortgage or may be unemployed and rely on the rental property as his or her sole income and therefore would also suffer financial difficulties if the term was reduced.
An example of this balancing exercise was seen in Lehrer v Protheroe DC Tauranga CIV-2009-070-65, 19 October 2009 where the tenant (a German doctor) entered into a fixed-term tenancy for a period of 13 months. Six months into the tenancy he became very unwell and, acting on advice from his doctor, resigned from his position as a hospital medical registrar and returned to Germany to recuperate. The tenant advised the landlord that he would be vacating and gave written notice. The landlord found new tenants approximately two and half months after the tenant gave notice and about two months after he vacated. The landlord sought rent for the period between the tenant vacating and the date the new tenant took up the rental. In response, the tenant sought a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.
In the District Court Judge Rollo found that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term was not reduced (as did the Tribunal). The Judge acknowledged that the central issue was to determine the balance to be struck between the interests of the tenant caught in a situation beyond his control and the interests of the landlord with an expectation of continued cash flow for the period of the fixed term. There was evidence that the landlord had a large mortgage on the property and she herself was flatting and could not afford to pay rent plus the mortgage instalments.
The Judge directed that close attention should be paid to the period of time taken to find a new tenant and, in particular, whether the time taken by the landlord to find a new tenant was “reasonable in the circumstances”. If the time was determined to be reasonable, the landlord should be compensated for the full amount of time. Alternatively, if it was found that the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to find another tenant, the landlord should be responsible for bearing some of the cost associated with that tardiness and the balance of severity of the hardship should begin to fall on the landlord’s side of the ledger. On the facts of this case, the Court held that two months was a reasonable period of time to find a new tenant for this particular property in the Tauranga market. Accordingly, the term of the tenancy was reduced to a date two months after the notice was given and the tenant was liable for rent until that date. The Court was satisfied that this fairly struck the balance between the respective hardships of tenant and landlord.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the hardship the tenants are suffering is greater than the hardship being suffered by the landlord. However, it is appropriate that the tenants compensate the landlord for breaking the fixed term tenancy under section 66(2) RTA.
As noted, the tenants have agreed to meet the costs charged by the landlord’s property manager which are reasonable in the circumstances. The question remains whether the period of slightly more than two months from 3 April to 6 June 2024 is a reasonable period of time to find suitable new tenants in the local market.
The landlord has satisfied the Tribunal that their property manager took all reasonable steps by advertising the property promptly and through all usual channels to find a new tenant. The landlord advised that the advertisement was placed as a feature listing to attract more attention. The landlord explained that it is harder to rent a property later in the year rather than at the beginning when people are moving towns for new jobs. The landlord did not have to accept any person that applied to rent the property. The landlord is entitled to apply its criteria for selecting a suitable tenant for what the landlord described as a superior property in a superior. The landlord has satisfied the Tribunal that the period taken to find a new, suitable tenant was reasonable.
It is appropriate that the tenants compensate the landlord for rent to the start of the new tenancy. The landlord supplied a rent record as evidence of that amount and this sum is awarded to the landlord. Tenant’s claim
The tenants claimed compensation for the landlord’s failure to fix the heating system in the property within a reasonable time frame and that the heating system’s failure meant that the landlord was in breach of the HHS. See section 45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA.
The tenants advised that they contacted the landlord during the Easter weekend, probably on Saturday 30 March 2024, to complain that the gas- fuelled radiator system throughout the house was not working.
The landlord arranged for a friend who was familiar with the system to attend but he was unable to fix the problem. The landlord arranged for a plumber to undertake repairs but he was insufficiently experienced to undertake the work.
The landlord’s son then delivered three heaters to the property for the tenants’ use until a suitably qualified contractor was located. The tenants vacated the property at the end of that week and the radiator system had not been repaired.
The landlord advised that they did everything they could to have the problem looked at over a long weekend and that they supplied an alternative source of heating for the main living area to which the HHS Heating Standards apply.
The tenants did not provide any evidence that the heaters supplied did not meet the HHS. Their claim for the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS is dismissed.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord did respond promptly to the tenants’ notification of the heating issue and did their best to mitigate the tenants’ inconvenience.
The tenants had contracted with the landlord to rent a property with a functioning heating system. They did not have this for a period of less than a week. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenants should be compensated for this relatively brief period of inconvenience. The tenants’ claim is dismissed.
Because Watson Real Estate Limited Watson Integrity has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As the tenants have been substantially successful in their claim and sensitive mental health issues are involved, it is appropriate that their request for name suppression be granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877243 — Rent arrears at 36C Elmira Avenue, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877243 — Rent arrears at 36C Elmira Avenue, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

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