How much money was awarded in case 4904725?

Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Re Letting Costs: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,040.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Blinds: $286.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904725?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904725?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11095502-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4904725?

Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Re Letting Costs: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,040.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Blinds: $286.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904725?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904725?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11095502-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904725 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904725 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 4904725 — net $1,589.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 12 May 2024 – 25 May 2024	$1,040.00	Rent arrears 12 May 2024 – 25 May 2024
Cleaning	$25.00	Cleaning
Replace blinds	$286.00	Replace blinds
Re letting costs	$218.50	Re letting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,589.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,589.94

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,589.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay $ 1,589.94 from the bond to the landlord. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $490.06 to the tenant.

Reasons

[ Redacted landlord] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.

The tenancy commenced on 13 January 2024 for a fixed term ending on 13 January 2025. On 26 April 2024, the parties agreed to end the tenancy on 25 May 2024. The landlord’s application was filed on 01 June 2024 and listed for hearing on 04 September 2024. On that date, the hearing was adjourned. On 05 September 2024, the tenant filed a counterclaim. Both applications were linked and listed for hearing before me on 13 November 2024.

The landlord’s claims are that (in brackets is the compensation sought): i. The tenant owes rent arrears from 12 May 2024 to 25 May 2024 ($1,040.00). ii. The tenant is responsible for damage to the blinds to the lounge more than fair wear and tear ($572.00). iii. The tenant has failed to compensate the landlord for reasonable costs associated with re letting the property ($218.50). iv. The tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition ($100.00).

The tenant’s claims: i. That the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition (failed to address a rodent infestation) which forced them to vacate the property on 03 May 2024. The tenant accepts liability for rent only until 11 May 2024. ii. They dispute all other claims made by the landlord and seek full refund of the bond.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case both must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent arrears, reasonable costs of reletting, failure to maintain (rodents).

On 20 April 2024, the landlord conducted an inspection where they identified what they believed was damage to the two venetian blinds in the lounge. On 22 April 2024, the tenant sent an email to the landlord stating they felt harassed over the blinds and suggested ending the tenancy. In an email dated 25 April 2024, the landlord stated that the tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found. The landlord attached a link to the Tenancy Services website, which they claim contained information about the landlord’s right to seek reasonable reletting costs. There are no terms in the agreement dealing with termination of the fixed term by mutual agreement.

On 26 April 2024, the tenant proposed a tenancy end date of 25 May 2024. This was accepted by the landlord. The property was advertised, and viewings held. A replacement tenant was found, and a new tenancy agreement entered commencing 27 May 2024.

On 27 May 2024, in response to the tenant enquiring about the return of the bond, the landlord sent an email setting out claims against the bond, which included advertising costs of $218.50.

The tenant accepts they would be liable for rent until at least 25 May 2024, and understood that if the landlord entered a new agreement before then, their liability would end on that date. However, the tenant denied that they had been made aware of a potential claim for costs associated with reletting, and state that the link provided did not lead to the advice relied on by the landlord.

The property has two bedrooms, bathroom, and an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area.

The tenant states that on 02 May 2024, while in the bathroom getting ready for work, they witnessed a rodent (rat or mouse) crossing the floor in the lounge. At

16 pm on 02 May 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord, stating, “I am writing to notify you that there is a mouse (pest) on the property as of this morning. Will you do something about this?” The tenant sent the same message again on 03 May 2024 at 9.16am.

The tenant claims when they returned from work, they did not feel safe remaining at the property and decided to leave, after which they spent some time sleeping in their vehicle.

On 04 May 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant that they had delivered a sticky mouse pad and 4 mouse traps and left them at the door. The landlord provided instructions on how to use the traps, and stated, “let me know if it is working or not.”

The tenant did not respond to the email. On 08 May 2024, a friend of the tenant’s visited the property and set the traps. The tenant had not informed the landlord that they were staying away from the property. The tenant returned on 11 May 2024, and removed their belongings. The tenant has produced photographs showing mouse droppings on the pantry’s bottom shelf and floor and in the cupboard under the kitchen sink.

On 15 May 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord, informing that they had vacated the property due to the rodent issue. This was the first notification to the landlord that the tenant had vacated before the agreed end date of 25 May 2024.

The landlord conducted an inspection on 16 May 2024, during which they found two dead mice under the oven: one caught on the sticky pad and the other in a trap. The landlord has produced photographs of the dead mice, the pantry, the alcove where the fridge had been, and inside the cupboard under the kitchen sink, all showing mouse droppings.

The tenant states, anticipating that the landlord might dispute the claim, they chose not to clean those areas.

The tenant argues the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition (that is failed to address a rodent infestation), which has forced them to vacate the property on 03 May 2024. Consequently, the tenant accepts liability for rent only until 11 May 2024, rather than the agreed end of tenancy date of 25 May 2024.

The landlord denies any failure meeting their obligations, stating that there was no evidence of any act or omission on their part which had resulted in a “rodent infestation”, and secondly, that they had responded within a reasonable time frame to the tenant’s report, providing traps, advice, and requesting the tenant report any ongoing issues. Law

Section 45(1)(a) of the Act states that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

The landlord’s obligation is to investigate and repair any defect (in this case a possible infestation) brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that period is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.

Section 40(1)(c) of the Act states that tenant must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy.

A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by unilateral notice. Section 50(1)(d) of the Act provides that parties to a tenancy, periodic or fixed term, may bring a tenancy to an end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy or offers up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent. In which case the parties have agreed to terminate the tenancy.

Section 44A of the Act states that if a tenancy is terminated under section 50(1)(d) the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant reasonable costs associated with that termination and finding a new tenant. Section 44A(2) states that a landlord who seeks to recover these expenses must first provide an itemised account of these expenses to the tenant. Decision.

There is no evidence that the presence of mice is attributable to any failure on the part of the landlord to provide the property reasonably clean and or to maintain the property in a reasonable condition. Nor is there any evidence that the tenant is responsible for the mice. Mouse droppings were not detected by the tenant until their return on 11 May 2024. The pantry was a high use area accessed by the tenant daily. Mice occasionally enter properties no matter its condition. The tenant has advised the landlord, and the landlord, has in my opinion, responded appropriately. The landlord has not breached their obligations. The tenant’s decision to vacate before allowing the landlord the opportunity to respond to any ongoing issues, of which they were not informed, was unreasonable. The tenant is liable for rent until the agreed end of the tenancy. I award the rent for the period 12 May 2024 to 25 May 2024.

Regarding the landlord’s claim for advertising costs. The landlord’s email of 27 May 2024 states, “2. Advertisement fee charged by [ Redacted] for us to look for a new tenant: $218.50”. This is the only incurred cost that is sought. The landlord has provided an invoice showing advertisements across five social media platforms. The costs are reasonable.

In my opinion the email sent to the tenant on 27 May 2024 constitutes, “an itemised account of the expenses incurred”, and was provided to the tenant in advance of this claim.

The Tribunal awards rent of $1,040.00 for the period from 12 May 2024 to 25 May 2024 and the advertising costs of $218.50. Cleaning

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior of the property taken on 16 May 2024. The property is empty. The landlord states that it was “filthy” and that they spent two days cleaning. The landlord states they completed cleaning themselves and are claiming $100.00. However, the photographs provided are limited and only show the mouse droppings, the two bedrooms, and the lounge, where clumps of matted hair can be seen on the carpet. Under the agreement the tenant was allowed two small dogs.

The tenant disputes this claim. The tenant has produced three short videos, one from the 01 May 2024 showing the property while occupied and focusing mainly on the overall condition of the interior, not end of tenancy cleanliness, and two from 11 May 2024, which focus on the pantry and under the kitchen sink. Additionally, the tenant has produced photographs of the kitchen, laundry/ front entrance, both bedrooms, and the bathroom, which they state were taken on the evening of 11 May 2024. In one of the bedroom photographs, part of a vacuum cleaner can be seen.

The photographs of the carpet produced by the landlord have been taken in the daylight are clearer and closer than those taken by the tenant. While the evidence does not support the landlord’s claim that the property was “filthy,” it is sufficient to establish that the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition. The hair on the floor is likely dog hair that has not been removed by the tenant’s vacuuming.

Concerning the responsibility for the mouse droppings, both parties argue that the other is liable for removing them. In my opinion, a reasonable tenant, having followed the landlord’s instructions, would have then cleaned up afterward. I find that the tenant, having taken photographs and a video for evidence, should have then wiped down the areas under the sink and the pantry.

The extent of the droppings is not significant. The two dead mice were likely the culprits. The property is small, and the carpeted area is not large. I award the landlord $25.00 to vacuum the floor, wipe out the cupboard under the sink, and the pantry. Damage

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the venetian blinds in the lounge which is more than fair wear and tear.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

There is no dispute that the blinds were undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report that does not show any damage to the blinds. The report has been signed by both parties.

Soon after the tenancy commenced, the landlord witnessed the tenant’s dogs moving around the bottom of the blinds in the lounge, trying to see outside. The landlord has shown a text message to the tenant noting this observation. At a tenancy inspection on 20 April 2024, the landlord discovered that the blind closest to the main door, one of two blinds in the lounge, had been partially opened at an angle. The landlord asked the tenant to lower the blind. Upon further inspection, the landlord discovered that the lower blades at each side of the blind were bent. The landlord states that the damage is consistent with the dogs pushing through them to see outside.

Liability for the damage was discussed during the inspection. The landlord has produced a document titled “House check record,” dated 20 April 2024, which contains two signed statements. The landlord’s statement reads, “2 blinds are damaged by the tenant’s dogs, need to be replaced at the tenant’s cost. The tenant’s statement reads, “The blinds are bent and can be reshaped (not damaged / or broken).”

Both parties have produced photographs of the blinds, the tenant’s taken on the evening of 11 May 2024, the landlords on 16 May 2024. As with those taken for cleaning purposes, the landlord’s photographs are significantly clearer.

As described by the landlord, the edges of the lower blades on both blinds are bent. All the other blades appear to be straight.

While the tenant accepts that the blades are bent and that this occurred during the tenancy they deny that it was the result of a careless or intentional act.

The tenant states that it has occurred because of a fault with the blind’s opening and closing mechanism. The tenant states, as shown in the photograph produced by the landlord dated 20 April 2024, that the blinds had opened unevenly, causing the blades to bend.

The landlord states that the blinds have been in the property since it was built in 2018 and have been operated by other occupants without any issues reported. The landlord states that a blind opening unevenly would not cause the type of damage seen, and that the damage was likely caused by the tenant’s dogs, for whom the tenant is responsible.

Having heard from both parties and considered the evidence, I prefer the landlord’s account to be a more plausible explanation for the damage. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord removed the blinds and took them to a local blinds specialist to see if they could be repaired. The landlord has produced a report from the specialist, dated 17 May 2024, which states that the blades have been bent and cannot be straightened, and the individual blades cannot be replaced, as they are unable to be colour matched. The specialist recommended replacing both the blinds for $572.00.

Blinds and curtains, which are chattels, in rental properties have a useful estimated life span of 8 years. In this case the blinds were 6 years old and approximately two – thirds through their estimated useful life span. Despite their age the blinds were in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Taking these factors into account, I reduce the amount claimed by 50% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $ 286.00 toward the replacement of the blinds. Costs

Because [ Redacted landlord] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful in these proceedings and is granted name suppression. The tenant has not been substantially successful. However, section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

Having had the benefit of hearing and observing the tenant give evidence in this matter, I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) and also order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904725 — net $1,589.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 12 May 2024 – 25 May 2024	$1,040.00	Rent arrears 12 May 2024 – 25 May 2024
Cleaning	$25.00	Cleaning
Replace blinds	$286.00	Replace blinds
Re letting costs	$218.50	Re letting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,589.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,589.94