What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932559 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4932559?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Use Of Garage (8 Weeks: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $2,262.86 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $122.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932559?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11288512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932559 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4932559?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Use Of Garage (8 Weeks: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $2,262.86 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $122.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932559?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11288512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 85 Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932559 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932559 — net $2,557.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 19 July 2024	$2,262.86		Rent to 19 July 2024
Water charges	$122.90		Water charges
Cleaning	$345.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Loss of use of garage (8 weeks		$200.00	Loss of use of garage (8 weeks
Total award	$2,757.76	$200.00
Net award	$2,557.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,557.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows and as set out in the table below: [The landlord/s]: $2,557.76 Zelsha Khan: $322.24

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 October 2024 in person. Only the landlord attended the telephone hearing on 9 January 2025.
Both parties applied to the Tribunal. The tenant sought refund of the bond, release from a fixed-term tenancy, and exemplary damages (the tenant clarified that this was a claim for compensation relating to a garage fire, discussed further below).
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims for water ($122.90) or cleaning ($345.00). Both claims are in any event supported by evidence. The landlord’s photographs support a finding that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The shower doors, some bathroom cupboards, certain windows, and the rangehood were not reasonably clean, for example. Supplier invoices supported the claim for water charges. Rent Arrears
The main dispute was about the landlord’s claim for rent. The landlord claimed rent arrears of $2,262.86 to 19 July 2024. The tenant disputed liability for rent after 28 June 2024, which is when they left. The keys were returned on 8 July 2024.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1 September 2023 to 30 August 2024. On 29 May 2024 the landlord gave a valid 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed-term. In subsequent correspondence, the landlord agreed to end the tenancy at the earliest on 19 July 2024. On 22 June 2024, the tenant emailed to say that they had to start moving out from 28 June 2024.
The tenant was at least liable for the rent while she remained in occupation, even if the tenancy had ended already (see section 60(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). It is difficult to accept that the tenancy ended on 28 June 2024, because the landlord did not have possession of the premises until the keys were returned on 8 July 2024. On the face of the tenancy agreement, the tenant is liable for rent to the end of the fixed term on 30 August 2024. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy earlier, on 19 July 2024, and waive the remaining rent. The correspondence does not suggest that the landlord agreed to terminate the tenancy on an earlier date, or accepted return of the keys on that basis. I find that the tenancy ended on 19 July 2024. Abatement of Rent
On 30 January 2024 there was a fire which badly damaged the detached garage. The tenant says the fire was not their fault. Further, the tenant submits that the loss of use of the garage until they left should be brought into account when determining the rent arrears.
The landlord says the tenant was using an illegal gas cooker in the kitchen. The landlord produced photographs taken at an inspection on 16 January 2024 which are said to show cooking appliances in the garage. The landlord says these included a gas cooker. The landlord also says that the tenants continued to use the garage for storage after the fire.
Following the second hearing, a report into the fire by a consultant dated 12 February 2024 was provided by the landlord. This referred to potential overheating of a power point in the garage but could not determine the cause of the fire.
In my view, it is unclear what caused the fire. Both parties gave verbal evidence of conversations with FENZ which supported their respective positions about the cause. The tenant said it was caused by heat build-up in a tin-roofed building. They also said the gas bottle was in the house but was later moved outside, and the gas cook top was never in the garage. The photographs show the cook top and gas bottle in the kitchen only. The consultant’s report did not identify the cause for the fire, which was found to be undetermined.
I find, on the available evidence, that the garage was not damaged because of a breach of the tenancy agreement, i.e., the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the fire, and the fire was not caused by use of a temporary gas cooktop in breach of the tenancy agreement.
The result is that the rent abates (section 59 of the Act). At the first hearing the landlord proposed a deduction of $550.00 to make allowance for loss of use of the garage but this has not been accepted by the tenant. It does appear that the tenant continued using the garage for storage after the fire and to the same extent as before – as shown in the landlord’s photographs. The timeline provided by the landlord states that the garage was demolished on 31 May 2024. There was therefore only a short period when the garage was unavailable. I deduct $200.00 for loss of use (approximately 8 weeks at $25.00 per week) for the period from 1 June 2024 to 19 July 2024. Reduction of Fixed Term
I have considered the tenant’s application pursuant to section 66 of the Act (reduction of fixed term tenancy). The tenant spoke about the hardship of having to pay the rent to 19 July 2024, in the context of the loss of their belongings in the garage fire. However, there were no supporting financial details, for example, the amount of any duplicated rent for two premises, or earnings. There was some suggestion that the tenant is living with family and is not paying rent.
What seems to have happened is that the landlord indicated they might agree to end the tenancy earlier if the tenant found a new property, but then was unwilling to agree to 28 June 2024. While the tenant’s expectation that they would be released earlier was disappointed, I am unable to conclude that the tenant will suffer “severe hardship” if the tenancy is not reduced (or further reduced, given the early release). Filing fee and suppression
The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is also granted name suppression, as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932559 — net $2,557.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 19 July 2024	$2,262.86		Rent to 19 July 2024
Water charges	$122.90		Water charges
Cleaning	$345.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Loss of use of garage (8 weeks		$200.00	Loss of use of garage (8 weeks
Total award	$2,757.76	$200.00
Net award	$2,557.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,557.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows and as set out in the table below: [The landlord/s]: $2,557.76 Zelsha Khan: $322.24

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 October 2024 in person. Only the landlord attended the telephone hearing on 9 January 2025.
Both parties applied to the Tribunal. The tenant sought refund of the bond, release from a fixed-term tenancy, and exemplary damages (the tenant clarified that this was a claim for compensation relating to a garage fire, discussed further below).
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims for water ($122.90) or cleaning ($345.00). Both claims are in any event supported by evidence. The landlord’s photographs support a finding that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The shower doors, some bathroom cupboards, certain windows, and the rangehood were not reasonably clean, for example. Supplier invoices supported the claim for water charges. Rent Arrears
The main dispute was about the landlord’s claim for rent. The landlord claimed rent arrears of $2,262.86 to 19 July 2024. The tenant disputed liability for rent after 28 June 2024, which is when they left. The keys were returned on 8 July 2024.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1 September 2023 to 30 August 2024. On 29 May 2024 the landlord gave a valid 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed-term. In subsequent correspondence, the landlord agreed to end the tenancy at the earliest on 19 July 2024. On 22 June 2024, the tenant emailed to say that they had to start moving out from 28 June 2024.
The tenant was at least liable for the rent while she remained in occupation, even if the tenancy had ended already (see section 60(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). It is difficult to accept that the tenancy ended on 28 June 2024, because the landlord did not have possession of the premises until the keys were returned on 8 July 2024. On the face of the tenancy agreement, the tenant is liable for rent to the end of the fixed term on 30 August 2024. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy earlier, on 19 July 2024, and waive the remaining rent. The correspondence does not suggest that the landlord agreed to terminate the tenancy on an earlier date, or accepted return of the keys on that basis. I find that the tenancy ended on 19 July 2024. Abatement of Rent
On 30 January 2024 there was a fire which badly damaged the detached garage. The tenant says the fire was not their fault. Further, the tenant submits that the loss of use of the garage until they left should be brought into account when determining the rent arrears.
The landlord says the tenant was using an illegal gas cooker in the kitchen. The landlord produced photographs taken at an inspection on 16 January 2024 which are said to show cooking appliances in the garage. The landlord says these included a gas cooker. The landlord also says that the tenants continued to use the garage for storage after the fire.
Following the second hearing, a report into the fire by a consultant dated 12 February 2024 was provided by the landlord. This referred to potential overheating of a power point in the garage but could not determine the cause of the fire.
In my view, it is unclear what caused the fire. Both parties gave verbal evidence of conversations with FENZ which supported their respective positions about the cause. The tenant said it was caused by heat build-up in a tin-roofed building. They also said the gas bottle was in the house but was later moved outside, and the gas cook top was never in the garage. The photographs show the cook top and gas bottle in the kitchen only. The consultant’s report did not identify the cause for the fire, which was found to be undetermined.
I find, on the available evidence, that the garage was not damaged because of a breach of the tenancy agreement, i.e., the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the fire, and the fire was not caused by use of a temporary gas cooktop in breach of the tenancy agreement.
The result is that the rent abates (section 59 of the Act). At the first hearing the landlord proposed a deduction of $550.00 to make allowance for loss of use of the garage but this has not been accepted by the tenant. It does appear that the tenant continued using the garage for storage after the fire and to the same extent as before – as shown in the landlord’s photographs. The timeline provided by the landlord states that the garage was demolished on 31 May 2024. There was therefore only a short period when the garage was unavailable. I deduct $200.00 for loss of use (approximately 8 weeks at $25.00 per week) for the period from 1 June 2024 to 19 July 2024. Reduction of Fixed Term
I have considered the tenant’s application pursuant to section 66 of the Act (reduction of fixed term tenancy). The tenant spoke about the hardship of having to pay the rent to 19 July 2024, in the context of the loss of their belongings in the garage fire. However, there were no supporting financial details, for example, the amount of any duplicated rent for two premises, or earnings. There was some suggestion that the tenant is living with family and is not paying rent.
What seems to have happened is that the landlord indicated they might agree to end the tenancy earlier if the tenant found a new property, but then was unwilling to agree to 28 June 2024. While the tenant’s expectation that they would be released earlier was disappointed, I am unable to conclude that the tenant will suffer “severe hardship” if the tenancy is not reduced (or further reduced, given the early release). Filing fee and suppression
The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is also granted name suppression, as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932559 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 85 Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932559 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 85 Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions