What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904993?

The tribunal order states: Jonty Bamber, Jack Bernard Anthony Bonisch and Oliver Argent to pay Man-

How much money was awarded in case 4904993?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Mattress Protector: $44.99 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904993?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10792368-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904993?

The tribunal order states: Jonty Bamber, Jack Bernard Anthony Bonisch and Oliver Argent to pay Man-

How much money was awarded in case 4904993?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Mattress Protector: $44.99 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904993?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10792368-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

116 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904993 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904993 — net $726.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$390.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement as agreed	$135.00	Lock/key replacement as agreed
Light bulbs/ and smoke batteries as agreed	$31.44	Light bulbs/ and smoke batteries as agreed
Replacement chairs as agreed	$100.00	Replacement chairs as agreed
Rubbish removal	$25.00	Rubbish removal
Replace mattress protector	$44.99	Replace mattress protector
Net award	$726.43
Bond	$2,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$726.43

Order

Jonty Bamber, Jack Bernard Anthony Bonisch and Oliver Argent to pay Man- Oock Holdings (2007) Limited $726.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited for further compensation of $1,995.55 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,328.00 (3573838-026) immediately apportioned as follows: Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited: $726.43 Jonty Bamber, Jack Bernard Anthony Bonisch and Oliver Argent: $1,601.57

Reasons

The landlord and two of the tenants attended the hearing.
On 24/4/2014 the tenants sought a refund of their $2,328.00 bond.
Following unsuccessful mediation in May, the landlord cross applied on 4/6/2024 for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2023 to 31/12/203 at $582.00 rent per week.

Did the tenants 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,364.99 as follows: a. $780.00 for cleaning b. $82.00 for electricity and mould detergent c. $176.70 for carpet and chair cleaning d. $$135.00 for four missing or non-working light bulbs e. $100.00 for two missing dining chairs f. $13.40 for a replacement smoke alarm battery g. $44.99 for replacement of a mattress protector. h. $32.90 for removal of rubbish and possessions belonging to the 2024 tenants.
In support of the claims the landlord provided extensive photographs, the initial property inspection report of 5/2/2023, invoices and receipts.
On the other hand, the tenants agreed to pay compensation for some rubbish removal, changing the locks, replacing one light bulb and smoke alarm battery and replacement of two missing chairs.
Awards have been made for the agreed claims.
However, the tenants disputed that they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or that the carpets needed cleaning, and advised that only one light bulb had stopped working. They provided photographs taken on 5/2/2023 and 14/11/2023, the latter when they left the premises.
An award has been made for some cleaning, albeit at half the amount claimed but not for cleaning required by the incoming tenant.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
I am persuaded, but only just, by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
In particular I accept the photographic evidence that the oven needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy, as did curtains and one mattress protector needed replacing because of staining.
The tenants agreed they left a small amount of rubbish.
However, I do not consider that the tenants in this instance are liable for tidying the gardens or cutting the lawns because of their belief that this was the landlord’s responsibility.
When the tenants arrived the landlord was tidying the garden and the chattels list notes that “landlord may maintain front lawn with use of power..”.
Further the landlord confirmed that while she usually provided this tenancy with a lawnmower, she had yet not replaced the mower which had been stolen the previous year.
As the premises were rented fully furnished and the section is large, around 500m2, I consider it reasonable that the tenants had an expectation that because there was no lawnmower, the landlord would look after the section.

Were the tenants 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.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,356.99 as follows: a. $713.50 for repair of a hole in a bedroom wall b. $513.69 for replacement of a shower diverter c. $129.80 for repair of a bathroom locking latch.
In support of the claims the landlord provided photographs and invoices.
The tenants submitted that the hole in the wall was caused when they attempted, at the request of the landlord, to clean mould which was growing on the wall and the gib board disintegrated.
While agreeing that the shower diverter had broken near the end of the tenancy the tenants thought this was wear and tear, and they had continued to be able to use the shower.
The tenants suggested there was no lock on the bathroom sliding door all year.
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.
I am satisfied damage was caused during the tenancy to a bedroom wall and shower diverter.
However, I am not persuaded by the evidence that the bathroom sliding door locked at the beginning of the tenancy or that it was damaged during this tenancy.
The landlord did not discover that the latch was broken until June 2024, six months after the end of the tenancy and several months after the 2024 tenants moved in.
Moreover, based on the evidence of the tenants, I consider the damage to the bedroom wall and shower diverter were fair wear and tear.
This is supported in regard to the bedroom wall by the evidence that the builder needed to repair the windowsill as well as the wall, which suggests structural issues.
The claims for compensation for damages fail.
Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or Act, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
I consider the landlord failed to mitigate the loss of both parties by only formally inspecting the premises at the beginning and end of the tenancy and not issuing 14 day notices when she became concerned about breaches due to mould and ventilation issues.
This failure effectively led to the bond dispute which took eight months to be heard in the Tribunal, and only after an application filed first by the tenants.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
The tenants did not apply for suppression.
Although the landlord sought name suppression, I consider this is not available to her under section 95A because she was not wholly or substantially successful with the claims, and then mostly only for the matters agreed to by the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904993 — net $726.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$390.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement as agreed	$135.00	Lock/key replacement as agreed
Light bulbs/ and smoke batteries as agreed	$31.44	Light bulbs/ and smoke batteries as agreed
Replacement chairs as agreed	$100.00	Replacement chairs as agreed
Rubbish removal	$25.00	Rubbish removal
Replace mattress protector	$44.99	Replace mattress protector
Net award	$726.43
Bond	$2,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$726.43

Order

Jonty Bamber, Jack Bernard Anthony Bonisch and Oliver Argent to pay Man- Oock Holdings (2007) Limited $726.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The application by Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited for further compensation of $1,995.55 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,328.00 (3573838-026) immediately apportioned as follows: Man-Oock Holdings (2007) Limited: $726.43 Jonty Bamber, Jack Bernard Anthony Bonisch and Oliver Argent: $1,601.57

Reasons

The landlord and two of the tenants attended the hearing.
On 24/4/2014 the tenants sought a refund of their $2,328.00 bond.
Following unsuccessful mediation in May, the landlord cross applied on 4/6/2024 for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2023 to 31/12/203 at $582.00 rent per week.

Did the tenants 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,364.99 as follows: a. $780.00 for cleaning b. $82.00 for electricity and mould detergent c. $176.70 for carpet and chair cleaning d. $$135.00 for four missing or non-working light bulbs e. $100.00 for two missing dining chairs f. $13.40 for a replacement smoke alarm battery g. $44.99 for replacement of a mattress protector. h. $32.90 for removal of rubbish and possessions belonging to the 2024 tenants.
In support of the claims the landlord provided extensive photographs, the initial property inspection report of 5/2/2023, invoices and receipts.
On the other hand, the tenants agreed to pay compensation for some rubbish removal, changing the locks, replacing one light bulb and smoke alarm battery and replacement of two missing chairs.
Awards have been made for the agreed claims.
However, the tenants disputed that they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or that the carpets needed cleaning, and advised that only one light bulb had stopped working. They provided photographs taken on 5/2/2023 and 14/11/2023, the latter when they left the premises.
An award has been made for some cleaning, albeit at half the amount claimed but not for cleaning required by the incoming tenant.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
I am persuaded, but only just, by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
In particular I accept the photographic evidence that the oven needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy, as did curtains and one mattress protector needed replacing because of staining.
The tenants agreed they left a small amount of rubbish.
However, I do not consider that the tenants in this instance are liable for tidying the gardens or cutting the lawns because of their belief that this was the landlord’s responsibility.
When the tenants arrived the landlord was tidying the garden and the chattels list notes that “landlord may maintain front lawn with use of power..”.
Further the landlord confirmed that while she usually provided this tenancy with a lawnmower, she had yet not replaced the mower which had been stolen the previous year.
As the premises were rented fully furnished and the section is large, around 500m2, I consider it reasonable that the tenants had an expectation that because there was no lawnmower, the landlord would look after the section.

Were the tenants 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.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,356.99 as follows: a. $713.50 for repair of a hole in a bedroom wall b. $513.69 for replacement of a shower diverter c. $129.80 for repair of a bathroom locking latch.
In support of the claims the landlord provided photographs and invoices.
The tenants submitted that the hole in the wall was caused when they attempted, at the request of the landlord, to clean mould which was growing on the wall and the gib board disintegrated.
While agreeing that the shower diverter had broken near the end of the tenancy the tenants thought this was wear and tear, and they had continued to be able to use the shower.
The tenants suggested there was no lock on the bathroom sliding door all year.
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.
I am satisfied damage was caused during the tenancy to a bedroom wall and shower diverter.
However, I am not persuaded by the evidence that the bathroom sliding door locked at the beginning of the tenancy or that it was damaged during this tenancy.
The landlord did not discover that the latch was broken until June 2024, six months after the end of the tenancy and several months after the 2024 tenants moved in.
Moreover, based on the evidence of the tenants, I consider the damage to the bedroom wall and shower diverter were fair wear and tear.
This is supported in regard to the bedroom wall by the evidence that the builder needed to repair the windowsill as well as the wall, which suggests structural issues.
The claims for compensation for damages fail.
Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or Act, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
I consider the landlord failed to mitigate the loss of both parties by only formally inspecting the premises at the beginning and end of the tenancy and not issuing 14 day notices when she became concerned about breaches due to mould and ventilation issues.
This failure effectively led to the bond dispute which took eight months to be heard in the Tribunal, and only after an application filed first by the tenants.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
The tenants did not apply for suppression.
Although the landlord sought name suppression, I consider this is not available to her under section 95A because she was not wholly or substantially successful with the claims, and then mostly only for the matters agreed to by the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904993 — Cleanliness at 116 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904993 — Cleanliness at 116 Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Were the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Were the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions