What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933180 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4933180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933180?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933180 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4933180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933180?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933180 — Leaks

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This was a tenancy of a four bedroom standalone home in Remuera, Auckland. The tenancy began on 17 April 2023 and ended on 14 July 2024.
Mr Bacon was not present when the hearing began at approximately 9.40am but his wife Ms Cui confirmed that he had been delayed due to work and that she had authority to represent him at the hearing today. Ms Cui presented the landlords’ claim.
[Tenant 1’s] wife, [Tenant 2] presented his response with his authority and consent. There appears to have been some confusion as [Tenant 2] was named as a tenant in the landlords’ application but I note that the only tenant named in the tenancy agreement is [Tenant 1]. I have therefore only named [Tenant 1] in this decision (as the contracting party), although I refer to both husband and wife in this decision as “tenants” as they were both dealing with the landlords during the tenancy.
While the tenants’ response was being presented Mr Bacon appeared (approximately 10.40am) and explained that he had been delayed due to work commitments. He presented the landlords’ reply in consultation with Ms Cui.
The landlords have applied for compensation for cleaning ($610), compensation for two weeks rent because they were unable to let the property immediately as the tenant’s refuse to allow them to do maintenance and allow prospective tenants to view the property ($1700), exemplary damages for failing to allow the landlord to enter, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Onus and evidence
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlords) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlords said that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy but did not provide any photographs or other evidence showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords provided two invoices for cleaning from Leaders Services totalling $610.00 as follows: a. Invoice dated 23 July 2024 for a cleaning deposit of $245.00; and b. Invoice dated 29 July 2024 for the remaining balance of “move out cleaning services” of $365.00.
The tenants said that they did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. They provided 56 photographs taken on the day that they vacated the property showing what appears to be all rooms including the garage in very clean and tidy condition (with all cupboards, oven and fridge open and showing the condition of the interior of those items). The tenants said that they paid for professional cleaning and produced an invoice from Ultra Light Limited dated 13 July 2024 for “cleaning 4 bedroom house” in the amount of $399.00.
In reply the landlords said that the tenants’ photos were taken from some distance and appeared to show that the property was reasonably clean and tidy but that on closer inspection that was not the case. Mr Bacon referred to and read out a report from the cleaner (that had not been previously been submitted in evidence) which referred to residue on walls from cleaning with sugar soap, marks on door frames, scuff marks, dust, and water marks and soap scum in the shower.
Tenants are only required to leave a property “reasonably clean and tidy”. They do not need to leave a property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into.
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.
Even if on closer inspection some of the areas might have required some additional cleaning (as the landlords claim) this does not mean that the tenants have breached their obligations. Tenants only need to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy. It is to be expected that landlords will need to do some additional cleaning between tenancies.
The landlords’ claim for cleaning is dismissed. Did the tenants refuse the landlord entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter?
The landlord says that the tenants did not allow them access to do maintenance in the last few weeks of the tenancy and unreasonably withheld permission to show prospective tenants through the property. They said that the tenants unlawfully served them with a trespass notice on 4 July 2024 (dated 3 July 2024).
The landlords said that as a result of the tenant’s behaviour they were unable to maintain continuity of rental income by securing new tenants as the end of the tenancy approached.
The landlord sought compensation in the amount of $1700 (two weeks rent) and exemplary damages. Maintenance
The landlords said that they were prevented from doing critical plumbing repairs and planned maintenance.
Landlords may enter premises for the purposes of carrying out necessary repairs or to do necessary maintenance of the premises at any time between 8am and 7pm after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry. See section 48(2)(cc) RTA.
It appears to be common ground between the parties that the critical plumbing work was completed by 6 March 2024 but that the landlords wished to repair the ceiling in the room underneath the bath. It seems to me from the evidence that this is when the parties’ previous friendly and cordial relationship began to break down.
The landlords had originally arranged to do the ceiling repairs on 19 March 2024 but one of the tenants and their child were unwell and asked to postpone the work. The tenants produced doctor’s certificates obtained for work purposes on 18 March (covering the period 18 March to 21 March 2024) that they were unwell.
After some discussion, the landlords did in fact attend on 19 March 2024 and spent two hours on maintenance.
The landlords then advised that they would attend to maintenance during Monday to Friday (17 – 24 June 2024) between the hours of 9am and 5pm.
It appears that the tenants objected to the lack of specific times and had concerns that the landlords were doing much more than necessary maintenance and repairs but were doing renovations. However while there were some further discussions about when the work would occur and what the work would entail, ultimately the landlord did attend on the proposed dates with the permission of the tenants.
I accept that there were differences between the parties and that this resulted in some frustration on both sides. However in my view there has been no breach by the tenants. The landlords did in fact do a substantial amount of maintenance during the tenancy and there was no occasion on which the landlords attempted to exercise their right to enter, having given notice pursuant to section 48(2)(cc), and were prevented from doing so. Viewings
The landlords said that the tenants unreasonably refused to allow the them to conduct viewings and that they were unable to show prospective tenants through the property as it was not in an acceptable state.
The landlords contacted the tenants on 20 and 21 June 2024 to advise that they would take prospective tenants through the property on 29 and 30 June but did not provide any viewing times.
On 24 June 2024 the tenants responded to say that 29 and 30 June were not convenient but that viewings on a Monday might be convenient.
On 26 June 2024 the landlords again requested access on 29 and 30 June but clarified that the viewings would be for one hour, between 12 and 1pm.
The tenants responded on 28 June 2024 agreeing to the proposed times. However the landlord then cancelled the planned viewings on the basis that they did not regard the property to be in reasonable condition.
There is no evidence before me showing that the tenants had unreasonably withheld consent for viewings. Trespass notice
The tenants served a trespass notice on 4 July 2024. The notice detailed specific concerns including that the landlords had conducted an inspection without notice (while carrying out maintenance) and were intending to carry out a further inspection within a four week period (in breach of section 48(2)(b) RTA).
The tenants have not filed a claim and so there is no need for me to determine whether there have in fact been any breaches by the landlords in this regard.
A tenant is entitled to issue a trespass notice against a landlord 1 . A trespass notice acts as a warning to prevent unlawful entry. The notice is subject to the landlord’s rights to enter the property lawfully pursuant to section 48 RTA. 1 See Lieven and Grieve v Pope & Ors [2020] NZDC 17768 and Jianping Liu v Rajeswary Kalathil Padmajan [2018] NZTT 4122619
The trespass notice did not impede the landlord’s right to lawful entry. Exemplary damages
As I have found no breach by the tenants it follows that no award of exemplary damages is available. Filing fee and Name suppression
The tenants have been the successful party. The are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933180 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933180 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions