What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945795 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay [The applicant/s] $1,077.00from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4945795?

Early Termination Expenses: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Repaint: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945795?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717473-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945795 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay [The applicant/s] $1,077.00from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4945795?

Early Termination Expenses: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Repaint: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945795?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717473-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

601 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945795 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945795 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Early termination expenses	$150.00	Early termination expenses
Wall repaint	$900.00	Wall repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,077.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay [The applicant/s] $1,077.00from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $678.74[Bond number suppressed] a. to [The applicant/s]$1,077.00 b. to [The tenant/s] - $1,283.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent/ Break fees
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy. The fixed term was extended by agreement to 21 October 2024.
The tenant wished to end the fixed term early and the landlord was able to find a replacement tenancy. That new tenancy began on Wednesday 3 July 2024.
Rent is paid to that date and there is no claim for rent arears.
There is however a claim for expenses incurred by the landlord as a result of the tenant breaking the fixed term early.
The tenant was required to sign an acknowledgement that she would pay: a. Drug test fees b. Trade Me advertising fees c. Credit checks d. Other costs e. Rent to the start of a new tenancy.
The landlord does not claim the drug test fee.
Under section 44A, “A landlord who consents to.......... termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) .......is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the........termination.” The landlord must provide an itemised account of those expenses.
The landlord has provided an itemised list of the expenses claimed. To be recoverable, those expenses must have been actually incurred by the landlord and must have resulted from the tenants’ early termination of the tenancy.
In terms of the expenses claimed, the landlord acknowledges that had the tenancy continued to the end of the fixed term, the same process for finding a new tenant would have been followed. The property manager does say, which I accept, that the tenants’ decision to end the fixed term early, created significant extra work for the property manager in trying to find a replacement tenancy at that more difficult time of year.
Those additional costs, which are directly caused by the by the early end of the tenancy, are recoverable.
In my view, costs that would in any event have been incurred in October when this tenancy ended but were instead met in July, do not represent an actual expense caused by the tenant’s breach. Those costs include the expense of the Trade Me advertising and expenses associated with the end of tenancy and ingoing inspections. The loss caused to the landlord by incurring those expenses three months earlier than the end of the tenancy, is negligible.
The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of expenses is adjusted accordingly.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Compensation is claimed in terms of an invoice for $775.25 from the cleaning company engaged by the landlord, which describes a considerable amount of cleaning work done on 2 July 2024.
I accept that on 2 July 2024 the premises were not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and that the landlord paid that amount for cleaning work.
However, the acknowledgment referred to in paragraph 7 included a requirement that the tenant vacate the premises 3 working days before the start of the new tenancy, which was Wednesday 3 July 2024.
Before the end of the prior week the tenant had said she needed to be at the premises over the weekend to complete the cleaning work. The property manager declined that request and insisted she not go to the premises.
The tenant says she should not have to pay for cleaning work she could and would have done, had she been able to be there over the weekend before the new tenancy started.
I find that the provision in the early termination acknowledgement, requiring that the tenant vacate the premises 3 working days before the new tenancy started, is unenforceable. Section 11 RTA provides that, “Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect...” unless permitted by the Tribunal.
The tenant was required to pay rent to 2 July 2024. While she is paying rent for the premises she is entitled to occupation of the premises. An agreement that requires her to pay rent but denies her occupation, breaches her entitlements under the RTA and is ineffective.
Even if that were not the case, preventing the tenant having access to the premises to clean them, before the start of a new tenancy and then requiring her to pay third party cleaning costs, breaches the landlord’s obligation to take reasonable mitigation steps under s.49.
I do not find it proved that the tenant breached her obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, because before the tenancy ended she had wrongfully been denied access to the premises.
That claim is declined.

Is the tenant 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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that during the tenancy, damage was caused by writing and drawing on walls.
Contractors were sent in on 2 separate occasions. A letter from the contractor notes, “There was extensive felt and biro drawings and scribbles throughout the home on walls skirtings door frames and doors. This required scrubbing application of stain blocker and paint to entire wall skirtings door frames and doors.”
The first invoice for $1,104.26 was for work done in “bedroom 1, door and door frame, hallway, walls and skirting”. That work was undertaken, through error on the part of the property manager, on 18 June 2024, some 2 weeks before the tenancy ended.
The second invoice for $1,104.72 was for work done after the tenancy ended in “entrance to kitchen 1 x wall, laundry 1 x times wall. lounge 2.5 x walls and skirting.”
Again, the tenant says that this was work she would have been able to do, given the opportunity, as she has family who could have helped her.
The landlord says that as the marks had been there for some time, it would be unreasonable to assume anything more would have been done to get rid of them.
As regards the work done on 18 June 2024, there is no evidence of any notice having been given requiring the tenant to remediate the damage at any time before the landlord’s contractors were sent in. I am not prepared to assume that the tenant would not have taken steps to fix that damage in the 2 weeks before the tenancy ended. There was time for her to do so.
As regards the work done on after the end of the tenancy, there were only a few days between when the tenant vacated and the end of the tenancy. That, the extent of the remediation work required and the other cleaning work that the tenant would have had to do if she been allowed access to the premises over the weekend, lead me to find it more likely than not that the tenant would not have been able to fully remediate that damage, even if the landlord didn’t wrongfully prevent her being at the premises before the new tenancy started.
It is possible that some mitigation of at damage, reducing the repair cost could have occurred during that short time and the award of compensation to the landlord takes that possibility into account.
I must also recognise though that the landlord is significantly out of pocket to address damage caused to the premises during the tenancy.
Because [The applicant/s] has had some claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945795 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Early termination expenses	$150.00	Early termination expenses
Wall repaint	$900.00	Wall repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,077.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay [The applicant/s] $1,077.00from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $678.74[Bond number suppressed] a. to [The applicant/s]$1,077.00 b. to [The tenant/s] - $1,283.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent/ Break fees
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy. The fixed term was extended by agreement to 21 October 2024.
The tenant wished to end the fixed term early and the landlord was able to find a replacement tenancy. That new tenancy began on Wednesday 3 July 2024.
Rent is paid to that date and there is no claim for rent arears.
There is however a claim for expenses incurred by the landlord as a result of the tenant breaking the fixed term early.
The tenant was required to sign an acknowledgement that she would pay: a. Drug test fees b. Trade Me advertising fees c. Credit checks d. Other costs e. Rent to the start of a new tenancy.
The landlord does not claim the drug test fee.
Under section 44A, “A landlord who consents to.......... termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) .......is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the........termination.” The landlord must provide an itemised account of those expenses.
The landlord has provided an itemised list of the expenses claimed. To be recoverable, those expenses must have been actually incurred by the landlord and must have resulted from the tenants’ early termination of the tenancy.
In terms of the expenses claimed, the landlord acknowledges that had the tenancy continued to the end of the fixed term, the same process for finding a new tenant would have been followed. The property manager does say, which I accept, that the tenants’ decision to end the fixed term early, created significant extra work for the property manager in trying to find a replacement tenancy at that more difficult time of year.
Those additional costs, which are directly caused by the by the early end of the tenancy, are recoverable.
In my view, costs that would in any event have been incurred in October when this tenancy ended but were instead met in July, do not represent an actual expense caused by the tenant’s breach. Those costs include the expense of the Trade Me advertising and expenses associated with the end of tenancy and ingoing inspections. The loss caused to the landlord by incurring those expenses three months earlier than the end of the tenancy, is negligible.
The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of expenses is adjusted accordingly.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Compensation is claimed in terms of an invoice for $775.25 from the cleaning company engaged by the landlord, which describes a considerable amount of cleaning work done on 2 July 2024.
I accept that on 2 July 2024 the premises were not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and that the landlord paid that amount for cleaning work.
However, the acknowledgment referred to in paragraph 7 included a requirement that the tenant vacate the premises 3 working days before the start of the new tenancy, which was Wednesday 3 July 2024.
Before the end of the prior week the tenant had said she needed to be at the premises over the weekend to complete the cleaning work. The property manager declined that request and insisted she not go to the premises.
The tenant says she should not have to pay for cleaning work she could and would have done, had she been able to be there over the weekend before the new tenancy started.
I find that the provision in the early termination acknowledgement, requiring that the tenant vacate the premises 3 working days before the new tenancy started, is unenforceable. Section 11 RTA provides that, “Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect...” unless permitted by the Tribunal.
The tenant was required to pay rent to 2 July 2024. While she is paying rent for the premises she is entitled to occupation of the premises. An agreement that requires her to pay rent but denies her occupation, breaches her entitlements under the RTA and is ineffective.
Even if that were not the case, preventing the tenant having access to the premises to clean them, before the start of a new tenancy and then requiring her to pay third party cleaning costs, breaches the landlord’s obligation to take reasonable mitigation steps under s.49.
I do not find it proved that the tenant breached her obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, because before the tenancy ended she had wrongfully been denied access to the premises.
That claim is declined.

Is the tenant 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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that during the tenancy, damage was caused by writing and drawing on walls.
Contractors were sent in on 2 separate occasions. A letter from the contractor notes, “There was extensive felt and biro drawings and scribbles throughout the home on walls skirtings door frames and doors. This required scrubbing application of stain blocker and paint to entire wall skirtings door frames and doors.”
The first invoice for $1,104.26 was for work done in “bedroom 1, door and door frame, hallway, walls and skirting”. That work was undertaken, through error on the part of the property manager, on 18 June 2024, some 2 weeks before the tenancy ended.
The second invoice for $1,104.72 was for work done after the tenancy ended in “entrance to kitchen 1 x wall, laundry 1 x times wall. lounge 2.5 x walls and skirting.”
Again, the tenant says that this was work she would have been able to do, given the opportunity, as she has family who could have helped her.
The landlord says that as the marks had been there for some time, it would be unreasonable to assume anything more would have been done to get rid of them.
As regards the work done on 18 June 2024, there is no evidence of any notice having been given requiring the tenant to remediate the damage at any time before the landlord’s contractors were sent in. I am not prepared to assume that the tenant would not have taken steps to fix that damage in the 2 weeks before the tenancy ended. There was time for her to do so.
As regards the work done on after the end of the tenancy, there were only a few days between when the tenant vacated and the end of the tenancy. That, the extent of the remediation work required and the other cleaning work that the tenant would have had to do if she been allowed access to the premises over the weekend, lead me to find it more likely than not that the tenant would not have been able to fully remediate that damage, even if the landlord didn’t wrongfully prevent her being at the premises before the new tenancy started.
It is possible that some mitigation of at damage, reducing the repair cost could have occurred during that short time and the award of compensation to the landlord takes that possibility into account.
I must also recognise though that the landlord is significantly out of pocket to address damage caused to the premises during the tenancy.
Because [The applicant/s] has had some claims upheld I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945795 — Tenancy dispute at 601 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945795 — Tenancy dispute at 601 Jervois Street, Mayfair, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions