What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4931118?

The tribunal order states: SML Holdings 2024 Limited and Kevin Fenwick must pay Ashleigh Ward

How much money was awarded in case 4931118?

Cleaning: $309.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $258.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931118?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10705642-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4931118?

The tribunal order states: SML Holdings 2024 Limited and Kevin Fenwick must pay Ashleigh Ward

How much money was awarded in case 4931118?

Cleaning: $309.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $258.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931118?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10705642-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Avanda Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931118 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931118 — net $409.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 12 April 2024 to 27 May 2024	$258.57		Rent arrears 12 April 2024 to 27 May 2024
Water rates 12 February 2024 to 28 May 2024	$59.20		Water rates 12 February 2024 to 28 May 2024
Curtain cleaning	$309.00		Curtain cleaning
Cleaning rubbish bins	$86.25		Cleaning rubbish bins
General cleaning, including carpets	$650.00		General cleaning, including carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Contribution by landlord to the bond		$1,800.00	Contribution by landlord to the bond
Total award	$1,390.02	$1,800.00
Net award		$409.98
Bond		$360.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$409.98

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dunn and Ms Layton represented the landlord.

The tenant, Ms Ward, applied for payment of the bond, and compensation/exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the full bond paid by her.

The landlord cross applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 May 2024.

Under a mediated order dated 11 April 2024 (application 4837962) the parties agreed that the rent owing as 11 April 2024 was $610.00 Ms Ward agreed to pay that amount (plus water rates due to 12 February and the Tribunal application fee) by weekly payments of $15.00. Ms Ward has been complying with that order.

The amount of rent claimed from 12 April 2024 until the end of the tenancy has been established by the production of a rent record. The amount of water rates due from 12 February 2024 until the end of the tenancy has been established by the production of an invoice.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Ms Ward did not leave the premises (including the carpets, curtains and rubbish bins) reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The amounts claimed to complete the cleaning has been established by the production of invoices. The amount claimed to complete general cleaning of the premises has been reduced because I consider that the claim for some of the cleaning is to bring the premises to standard above the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean. In particular, I do not consider that a tenant should be liable to remove cobwebs, clean fly dirt from the ceiling, and complete minor cleaning of skirting boards to comply with their obligation in section 45(1)(e) of the Act. I also consider the cleaning of the bathroom and garage extractor fan filters is a maintenance issue and therefore not the tenant’s responsibility. Should compensation/exemplary damages be ordered for non-lodgement of the full bond?

There was no dispute that in July 2020 Ms Ward paid a bond of $2,160.00 to the then property manager for the tenancy, Metropolis Property Management Ltd. It seems that Metropolis Property Management only paid to the Bond Centre $360.00 of the total bond received.

There was no dispute that the full bond paid by Ms Ward was not lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it, as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Act. The failure to lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum amount of $1,500.

Quinovic Property Management took over management of the tenancy on 15 July 2022 and Ms Layton said that it was then that it was discovered that the Bond Centre only held a bond of $360.00. She asked Ms Ward to provide confirmation of the total bond she had paid to Metropolis and eventually WINZ confirmed that it had paid, on Ms Ward’s behalf, $2,160.00. Ms Layton confirmed that Quinovic would contribute the shortfall ($1,800.00) when the tenancy ended.

The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.

I am not satisfied that the threshold requirement of intention is satisfied here. There was clearly no intention on the part of Quinovic Property Management to not lodge the full bond when it was paid, and there is no evidence to support that the landlord (Mr Fenwick) was aware that Metropolis had not lodged the full bond.

The claim for compensation or exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the full bond is therefore dismissed.

The landlord has been mostly successful in his claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

The amount ordered is to be paid out of the total bond held for the tenancy with the balance to be paid to Ms Ward.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931118 — net $409.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 12 April 2024 to 27 May 2024	$258.57		Rent arrears 12 April 2024 to 27 May 2024
Water rates 12 February 2024 to 28 May 2024	$59.20		Water rates 12 February 2024 to 28 May 2024
Curtain cleaning	$309.00		Curtain cleaning
Cleaning rubbish bins	$86.25		Cleaning rubbish bins
General cleaning, including carpets	$650.00		General cleaning, including carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Contribution by landlord to the bond		$1,800.00	Contribution by landlord to the bond
Total award	$1,390.02	$1,800.00
Net award		$409.98
Bond		$360.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$409.98

Order

SML Holdings 2024 Limited and Kevin Fenwick must pay Ashleigh Ward $409.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $360.00 (6376770-005) to Ashleigh Ward immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dunn and Ms Layton represented the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Ward, applied for payment of the bond, and compensation/exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the full bond paid by her.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 May 2024.
Under a mediated order dated 11 April 2024 (application 4837962) the parties agreed that the rent owing as 11 April 2024 was $610.00 Ms Ward agreed to pay that amount (plus water rates due to 12 February and the Tribunal application fee) by weekly payments of $15.00. Ms Ward has been complying with that order.
The amount of rent claimed from 12 April 2024 until the end of the tenancy has been established by the production of a rent record. The amount of water rates due from 12 February 2024 until the end of the tenancy has been established by the production of an invoice.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Ms Ward did not leave the premises (including the carpets, curtains and rubbish bins) reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts claimed to complete the cleaning has been established by the production of invoices. The amount claimed to complete general cleaning of the premises has been reduced because I consider that the claim for some of the cleaning is to bring the premises to standard above the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean. In particular, I do not consider that a tenant should be liable to remove cobwebs, clean fly dirt from the ceiling, and complete minor cleaning of skirting boards to comply with their obligation in section 45(1)(e) of the Act. I also consider the cleaning of the bathroom and garage extractor fan filters is a maintenance issue and therefore not the tenant’s responsibility. Should compensation/exemplary damages be ordered for non-lodgement of the full bond?
There was no dispute that in July 2020 Ms Ward paid a bond of $2,160.00 to the then property manager for the tenancy, Metropolis Property Management Ltd. It seems that Metropolis Property Management only paid to the Bond Centre $360.00 of the total bond received.
There was no dispute that the full bond paid by Ms Ward was not lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it, as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Act. The failure to lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum amount of $1,500.
Quinovic Property Management took over management of the tenancy on 15 July 2022 and Ms Layton said that it was then that it was discovered that the Bond Centre only held a bond of $360.00. She asked Ms Ward to provide confirmation of the total bond she had paid to Metropolis and eventually WINZ confirmed that it had paid, on Ms Ward’s behalf, $2,160.00. Ms Layton confirmed that Quinovic would contribute the shortfall ($1,800.00) when the tenancy ended.
The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
I am not satisfied that the threshold requirement of intention is satisfied here. There was clearly no intention on the part of Quinovic Property Management to not lodge the full bond when it was paid, and there is no evidence to support that the landlord (Mr Fenwick) was aware that Metropolis had not lodged the full bond.
The claim for compensation or exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the full bond is therefore dismissed.
The landlord has been mostly successful in his claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.
The amount ordered is to be paid out of the total bond held for the tenancy with the balance to be paid to Ms Ward.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931118 — Cleanliness at 35 Avanda Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931118 — Cleanliness at 35 Avanda Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions