What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4880821 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4880821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880821?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10802490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4880821 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4880821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880821?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10802490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4880821 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.
The applicant will refund $448.00 to the respondent if the respondent provides the applicant with bank account details.

Reasons

Only the landlord appeared for the in-person hearing. The tenant was phoned twice but calls went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation for Bio-cleaning costs at the property.
The background to the claim is as follows. The tenant had a person/partner staying at the property in breach of his tenancy agreement. The landlord requested the tenant to remedy the breach. The tenant complied with the landlord’s request and required the partner to leave. On an evening after being told to leave, the partner returned to the property. She was told to leave and left but then returned. She was intoxicated and climbed scaffolding to get to the tenant’s room. She cut herself and bled on the scaffolding. She fell and left blood through the entrance of the complex to the tenant’s room. Because of her injuries the tenant permitted her to stay that evening. The landlord contacted a bio-cleaning company to clean the blood from the scaffolding and from the premises. The landlord has charged the cost of cleaning to the tenant. The tenant has begun to pay the $2,400.00 cost of cleaning. To date he has paid $448.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the cleaning cost?

Section 41(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant has responsibility for actions of others. It states (my bold): ‘The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.’
Section 41 makes clear that a tenant is only responsible for the actions of others where the tenant permitted the person to be at the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant in the present case did not permit the person/partner to be at the premises at the time that she injured herself. She was not permitted to be at the property when blood led to the property cleaning expense. Therefore the tenant is not liable to pay for the cleaning. The landlord could make a claim in a Disputes Tribunal against the person who caused the problem.
The landlord said that the tenant agreed to pay for the damage. He has begun making payments. However under section 11(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the tenant’s agreement to pay is of no effect. Section 11(3) provides: ‘Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.’
The tenant’s right was not to have to pay compensation for a loss caused by a person he had not permitted to be at the property. His waiver of that right is of no effect.

Should an order be made for the landlord to refund the amount paid by the tenant?

Normally orders are made only when an application is lodged by a party. In the present case there was no application from the tenant and because he did not appear for the hearing he was not able to be asked if he wished to make an application for a refund of the amount paid.
Section 85 of the RTA provides: ‘The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.’
The merits and justice of the case are that even although the tenant has not appeared and has not made an application for a refund of the amount he has paid, the Tribunal should order the money he paid to the landlord for the blood cleanup be refunded to him. Name Suppression
I have also considered name suppression for the tenant. Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name on its own initiative. ‘The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.’
Because the Tribunal has found the tenant to be not liable for any amount in the landlord’s claim it is reasonable that the tenant’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The applicant will refund $448.00 to the respondent if the respondent provides the applicant with bank account details.

Reasons

Only the landlord appeared for the in-person hearing. The tenant was phoned twice but calls went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation for Bio-cleaning costs at the property.
The background to the claim is as follows. The tenant had a person/partner staying at the property in breach of his tenancy agreement. The landlord requested the tenant to remedy the breach. The tenant complied with the landlord’s request and required the partner to leave. On an evening after being told to leave, the partner returned to the property. She was told to leave and left but then returned. She was intoxicated and climbed scaffolding to get to the tenant’s room. She cut herself and bled on the scaffolding. She fell and left blood through the entrance of the complex to the tenant’s room. Because of her injuries the tenant permitted her to stay that evening. The landlord contacted a bio-cleaning company to clean the blood from the scaffolding and from the premises. The landlord has charged the cost of cleaning to the tenant. The tenant has begun to pay the $2,400.00 cost of cleaning. To date he has paid $448.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the cleaning cost?

Section 41(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant has responsibility for actions of others. It states (my bold): ‘The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.’
Section 41 makes clear that a tenant is only responsible for the actions of others where the tenant permitted the person to be at the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant in the present case did not permit the person/partner to be at the premises at the time that she injured herself. She was not permitted to be at the property when blood led to the property cleaning expense. Therefore the tenant is not liable to pay for the cleaning. The landlord could make a claim in a Disputes Tribunal against the person who caused the problem.
The landlord said that the tenant agreed to pay for the damage. He has begun making payments. However under section 11(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the tenant’s agreement to pay is of no effect. Section 11(3) provides: ‘Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.’
The tenant’s right was not to have to pay compensation for a loss caused by a person he had not permitted to be at the property. His waiver of that right is of no effect.

Should an order be made for the landlord to refund the amount paid by the tenant?

Normally orders are made only when an application is lodged by a party. In the present case there was no application from the tenant and because he did not appear for the hearing he was not able to be asked if he wished to make an application for a refund of the amount paid.
Section 85 of the RTA provides: ‘The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.’
The merits and justice of the case are that even although the tenant has not appeared and has not made an application for a refund of the amount he has paid, the Tribunal should order the money he paid to the landlord for the blood cleanup be refunded to him. Name Suppression
I have also considered name suppression for the tenant. Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name on its own initiative. ‘The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.’
Because the Tribunal has found the tenant to be not liable for any amount in the landlord’s claim it is reasonable that the tenant’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880821 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880821 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cleaning cost?

Should an order be made for the landlord to refund the amount paid by the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cleaning cost?

Should an order be made for the landlord to refund the amount paid by the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions