What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4891941 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4891941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891941?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676312-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4891941 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4891941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891941?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10676312-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Apartment 2311, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891941 — Cleanliness

Order

The landlords’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Labrooy attended. The tenant did not attend. There was no telephone number provided on which she could be contacted.
The landlord claims power costs, compensation for missing linen and work and parts for a kitchen waste disposal unit following the end of the tenancy.
The premises is an apartment in a hotel/apartment building. The landlord has three apartments there. The tenant had a tenancy of one apartment from the landlord from May 2023 and then moved to the premises at the end of January 2024. That tenancy ended in May. Power
The landlord proved the tenant’s liability for power costs in the sum of $55.37 by the production of invoices. I note that the tenant had accepted liability for the final power accounts, and she was waiting for them to be provided. Linen
When the tenant moved into the premises in January, she was not happy with cleanliness and condition of some of the linen. She therefore bagged it up and left it in the hotel reception, giving reception the apartment number, for the landlord to collect. The hotel reception manages the cleaning of linen for the apartments. The tenant messaged Mr Labrooy and told him what she had done. He messaged back thanking her.
Mr Labrooy then took no steps to collect the linen or to contact the tenant or the hotel about the linen. In May, he asked the hotel about the linen, and they had no record of it. It seems that when linen is left for cleaning, there is a ticket to be completed with the apartment number on it. It seems that no ticket was completed, probably because the linen was to be collected, not cleaned.
When Mr Labrooy came to retrieve the linen from the hotel in May, there was no record of it, and it was nowhere to be found.
Mr Labrooy said that he did not collect the linen because he was busy, and he expected it to be left for cleaning in the usual way. It seems that he did not take care to read the tenant’s message.
I fail to see why the tenant should be responsible for the loss of the linen in these circumstances. Mr Labrooy could have told the tenant to leave it for cleaning or given her other instructions or he could have contacted the hotel at the time, or he could have collected the linen. He did none of those things and he now blames the tenant for its loss. In my view, Mr Labrooy has only himself to blame for the loss of the linen and so this claim is dismissed. Waste Disposal Unit
The landlords produced an invoice dated in support of this claim dated 27 February referring to a call out on 22 February. That was shortly after the tenancy began. The landlords claim that the plug was missing from the unit at the end of the tenancy although Mr Labrooy said at the hearing that the unit was blocked as well.
The tenant produced a photograph to show that the plug was there when she vacated the premises. It seems that she was not aware of the claim relating a blocked unit.
The landlord has not provided credible evidence to prove this claim. If the problem arose in February, I would have expected it to have been dealt with then and there is no evidence of that. Cleaning
There is no claim for cleaning, but the landlords have taken $600 from the bond for cleaning. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant will pay the landlord $600 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Mr Labrooy said that all his tenancy agreements (he has other rental properties not in the hotel), contain the same term. He said that he did not want to have to come to the Tribunal with claims for the cost of cleaning.
I pointed out to Mr Labrooy that the term was unlawful. Tenants have an obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If they don’t meet that obligation, landlords may recover the reasonable cost of cleaning the premises from the tenant after the tenancy has ended. What the landlord cannot do, for obvious reasons, is to require tenants to agree to pay for cleaning in advance.
Section 32 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) prohibits any provision in the tenancy agreement that requires the tenant to pay a specified sum for damages (compensation) for a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement. Here, the landlords have imposed such a term but made it payable even without the breach.
The upshot is that the landlord has taken $600 from the tenant without proving that the tenant is liable to pay it. The tenant agreed to the deduction, but no doubt she did so in ignorance of her right to dispute it. She was an overseas student in New Zealand at the time.
As well, s137 of the Act makes it an unlawful act for a party to require another person to agree to a term that contravenes a provision of the Act. The Tribunal can award exemplary damages for that. That is what the landlords have done here. There is no tenant’s application but the fact that the landlords have taken money from the bond under what I consider to be false pretences, means that I am not willing to make any award to the landlords.
Therefore, the application is dismissed.

Order

The landlords’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Labrooy attended. The tenant did not attend. There was no telephone number provided on which she could be contacted.
The landlord claims power costs, compensation for missing linen and work and parts for a kitchen waste disposal unit following the end of the tenancy.
The premises is an apartment in a hotel/apartment building. The landlord has three apartments there. The tenant had a tenancy of one apartment from the landlord from May 2023 and then moved to the premises at the end of January 2024. That tenancy ended in May. Power
The landlord proved the tenant’s liability for power costs in the sum of $55.37 by the production of invoices. I note that the tenant had accepted liability for the final power accounts, and she was waiting for them to be provided. Linen
When the tenant moved into the premises in January, she was not happy with cleanliness and condition of some of the linen. She therefore bagged it up and left it in the hotel reception, giving reception the apartment number, for the landlord to collect. The hotel reception manages the cleaning of linen for the apartments. The tenant messaged Mr Labrooy and told him what she had done. He messaged back thanking her.
Mr Labrooy then took no steps to collect the linen or to contact the tenant or the hotel about the linen. In May, he asked the hotel about the linen, and they had no record of it. It seems that when linen is left for cleaning, there is a ticket to be completed with the apartment number on it. It seems that no ticket was completed, probably because the linen was to be collected, not cleaned.
When Mr Labrooy came to retrieve the linen from the hotel in May, there was no record of it, and it was nowhere to be found.
Mr Labrooy said that he did not collect the linen because he was busy, and he expected it to be left for cleaning in the usual way. It seems that he did not take care to read the tenant’s message.
I fail to see why the tenant should be responsible for the loss of the linen in these circumstances. Mr Labrooy could have told the tenant to leave it for cleaning or given her other instructions or he could have contacted the hotel at the time, or he could have collected the linen. He did none of those things and he now blames the tenant for its loss. In my view, Mr Labrooy has only himself to blame for the loss of the linen and so this claim is dismissed. Waste Disposal Unit
The landlords produced an invoice dated in support of this claim dated 27 February referring to a call out on 22 February. That was shortly after the tenancy began. The landlords claim that the plug was missing from the unit at the end of the tenancy although Mr Labrooy said at the hearing that the unit was blocked as well.
The tenant produced a photograph to show that the plug was there when she vacated the premises. It seems that she was not aware of the claim relating a blocked unit.
The landlord has not provided credible evidence to prove this claim. If the problem arose in February, I would have expected it to have been dealt with then and there is no evidence of that. Cleaning
There is no claim for cleaning, but the landlords have taken $600 from the bond for cleaning. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant will pay the landlord $600 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Mr Labrooy said that all his tenancy agreements (he has other rental properties not in the hotel), contain the same term. He said that he did not want to have to come to the Tribunal with claims for the cost of cleaning.
I pointed out to Mr Labrooy that the term was unlawful. Tenants have an obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. If they don’t meet that obligation, landlords may recover the reasonable cost of cleaning the premises from the tenant after the tenancy has ended. What the landlord cannot do, for obvious reasons, is to require tenants to agree to pay for cleaning in advance.
Section 32 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) prohibits any provision in the tenancy agreement that requires the tenant to pay a specified sum for damages (compensation) for a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement. Here, the landlords have imposed such a term but made it payable even without the breach.
The upshot is that the landlord has taken $600 from the tenant without proving that the tenant is liable to pay it. The tenant agreed to the deduction, but no doubt she did so in ignorance of her right to dispute it. She was an overseas student in New Zealand at the time.
As well, s137 of the Act makes it an unlawful act for a party to require another person to agree to a term that contravenes a provision of the Act. The Tribunal can award exemplary damages for that. That is what the landlords have done here. There is no tenant’s application but the fact that the landlords have taken money from the bond under what I consider to be false pretences, means that I am not willing to make any award to the landlords.
Therefore, the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891941 — Cleanliness at Apartment 2311, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891941 — Cleanliness at Apartment 2311, 1 Courthouse Lane, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions