What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4895960 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The parties other claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4895960?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Delay in fixing draina…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $339.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $170.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $13.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11031736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4895960 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The parties other claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4895960?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Delay in fixing draina…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $339.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $170.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $13.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11031736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4895960 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4895960 — net $295.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$13.57		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet - Insurance Excess	$550.00		Repairs: Carpet - Insurance Excess
Compensation: Repairs		$170.00	Repairs
Compensation: Delay in fixing drainage pump		$500.00	Delay in fixing drainage pump
Compensation: Reimburse Carpet Cleaning		$339.25	Reimburse Carpet Cleaning
Total award	$713.57	$1,009.25
Net award		$295.68
Bond		$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$295.68

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment, breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations and Healthy Homes Standards and reimbursement of repair costs incurred during the tenancy.

Each party has the onus of the proving their claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. The parties must provide the Tribunal with the evidence to establish their claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted this aspect of the landlord’s claim.

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 (RTA).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to establish this aspect of its claim.

The tenant incurred the cost of carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord insisted on carpet cleaning before it had inspected the premises. The landlord did not provide evidence that carpet cleaning was reasonably required, other than in the living room, at the end of the tenancy.

Carpet cleaning may be required if a landlord establishes that the carpet was not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. A clause in a tenancy agreement requiring carpet to be cleaned is not generally enforceable. See s11 RTA.

The tenant sought reimbursement of the full carpet cleaning invoice on the basis that the living room carpet is now being replaced. That carpet was not clean at the end of the tenancy. It is not uncommon to try cleaning before an insurance claim for replacement is accepted, or before a landlord determines that the staining or damage is not repairable. I award reimbursement of $339.25 of the carpet cleaning invoice to the tenant, because I am not satisfied that carpet cleaning was reasonably required throughout the property and the landlord issued a firm directive before even viewing the carpet. Cleaning was required in the living room.

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 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.

The landlord claimed an insurance excess for the cost of replacement carpet in the living room and another insurance excess for damage to a door. The photographs establish that the living room carpet was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord’s insurer accepted a claim for replacement based on the extent of the damage. The landlord made submissions about the cause of the damage being unauthorised dogs at the premises and invited me to draw inferences from Social Media posts by the tenant. It is not necessary for me determine what caused the damage to the carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the carpet damage. I award the landlord the insurance excess.

The door was damaged as the tenant moved out the premises. I accept her evidence that it was knocked as she and her son were trying to move heavy furniture. The damage was accidental; not careless or intentional.

The claim for the door is dismissed. Unlawful Use of the Premises

Enting Real Estate Limited - As Agent For Meng Dong & Shennan Ling claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine at the property. The landlord claims exemplary damages.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There was no methamphetamine testing before the tenancy started. Testing was carried out on 17 January 2024, close to the end of the tenancy. Before the hearing, the landlord has only provided the Tribunal and the tenant with composite test results.

The testing laboratory provided 2 composite test results from 11 discrete samples. The composite results provide theoretical maximum levels of methamphetamine residue at the premises of 3.7 and 4.4 μg/100cm 2 .

The discrete samples were then analysed. Those results were provided to the tenant and the Tribunal at the hearing. Ten of the samples returned results of

07 to 0.78 μg/100cm 2 . The door frame of bedroom 2 returned a result of 3.0 μg/100cm 2 . The tenant was evasive when asked who used that bedroom. She claimed that all of the occupants of the premises had used it at one time or another.

As there was no in-going methamphetamine testing, the landlord referred me to a swab taken from an extraction fan in the bathroom. That swab was taken on 14 March 2024 and recorded methamphetamine residue of 0.71 μg/sample. It is not clear how that translates to a reading of μg/100cm 2 .

The landlord initially maintained that the extractor fan was installed after the start of the tenancy, so the tenant must have used methamphetamine during the tenancy. The tenant denied using methamphetamine and said that the fan was installed before the tenancy started.

The landlord could not provide an installation date. Rather, it referred to an invoice from the installer dated 30 June 2019. The tenancy started on 23 August 2019, almost two months after the invoice. Further, the invoice does not say when the fan was installed. During the hearing the landlord obtained an email from the electrician stating that it would have been two weeks, at most, between installation and invoicing. Even if the fan was installed and invoiced on the same day, there was a period of 7 weeks between installation and the tenant moving in.

The tenant provided a copy of drug testing which showed that there was no evidence of methamphetamine in her system at the time of the test. The test was done after the tenancy ended and there was no evidence regarding how long methamphetamine traces are detectable from a urine sample.

There was no corroborative evidence of drug use at the premises during the tenancy.

Overall, the evidence leads to the conclusion that methamphetamine may have been used at the premises during the tenancy. However, the landlord has not proved that it is more likely than not that use occurred during the tenancy or that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.

This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Landlord Repair & Maintenance Obligations

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their repair and maintenance obligations.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

The landlord failed to repair or replace a pump for the stormwater drainage within a reasonable timeframe. There were issues with the pump for approximately 12 months. The landlord did attempt repairs (or engaged a plumber to do so), but during that time there was excessive surface water around the house during heavy rain. The tenant did not establish any out-of- pocket costs or expenses in relation to the pump. She was inconvenienced by having to manually clear the pump a couple of times and was concerned about the flooding risk during heavy rain. I award compensation of $500.

The tenant raised other maintenance issues, such as a toilet repair, but did not establish that the landlord failed to address those issues within a reasonable timeframe.

The tenant also submitted an invoice, from her father, for repairs he had done early in the tenancy. The Property Manager knew the repairs were being done and, at the hearing, acknowledged that it would have incurred the cost of repairing a door handle and manhole cover, if the tenant’s father had not done so. I award the costs claimed for those repairs of $170.

The tenant did not provide enough evidence to prove a claim in relation to birds nesting in the roof area.

That claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant also claimed that the landlord has breached Healthy Homes Standards under s45. The compliance date for Healthy Homes Standards varies with each tenancy. Tenancy renewal or extension documents provided by the landlord to the tenant were inconsistent and confusing.

The landlord now says that it was not required to achieve the Healthy Homes Standards during this tenancy because the tenancy was extended, not renewed. See Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 schedule 1, Part 1 clause 2 (2).

This tenancy started in 2019. The tenant provided me with copies of all renewal/extension documents. On those documents the start date of the tenancy is recorded as 2019. The terms of the tenancy did not change. I find that the tenancy was extended. The tenant did not establish that the landlord was required to comply with Healthy Homes Standards during this tenancy. As such, I have not considered whether there was compliance and, if there was, when it was achieved.

This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Notice of Inspection

The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide the correct notice for an inspection for methamphetamine testing at the premises. See s48(1)(ba) RTA.

The landlord asked for testing to be done less than 48 hours before the proposed visit by the testing company. The tenant refused and the landlord accepted that. The landlord did not breach its obligations regarding notice or entry.

This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The tenant claims that landlord has harassed them and made improper allegations regarding methamphetamine use. Most of the allegations relate to the Property Manager’s conduct and communications after the tenancy ended. Those communications cannot amount to a breach of s38(2), as the tenant is no longer using the premises. See Sibilis v Croft and Byrt [2023] NZDC 26882.

This aspect of the claim is dismissed.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee.

Overall, I find that the tenant was substantially successful and have granted her request for suppression of her name and identifying details.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4895960 — net $295.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$13.57		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet - Insurance Excess	$550.00		Repairs: Carpet - Insurance Excess
Compensation: Repairs		$170.00	Repairs
Compensation: Delay in fixing drainage pump		$500.00	Delay in fixing drainage pump
Compensation: Reimburse Carpet Cleaning		$339.25	Reimburse Carpet Cleaning
Total award	$713.57	$1,009.25
Net award		$295.68
Bond		$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$295.68