How much money was awarded in case 4999129?

Cleaning: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11149612-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4999129?

Cleaning: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11149612-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4999129 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4999129 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999129 — net $1,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Not reasonably clean and tidy	$1,300.00	Not reasonably clean and tidy
Compensation: Repair and maintenance - toilet	$50.00	Repair and maintenance - toilet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,377.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts Asset Managers As Agent For R & P Patel must pay [The tenant/s] $1,377.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dishington and Mr Siebert represented the landlords.

The tenants applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for: • failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition; • failure to repair and maintain the premises; • failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards with respect to draughts; and • for misrepresenting the tenancy.

The tenants also applied for work orders (to clean the carpets and repair the toilet), and for compensation and/or exemplary damages for unlawful entry but they withdrew these claims at the hearing.

The tenants have a tenancy of the premises commencing on 2 August 2024. The tenancy was originally for a one-year fixed term but, in response to the tenants concerns regarding the property the landlords offered and the tenants accepted, the change to a periodic tenancy to enable the tenants to give notice to end the tenancy when they have found another tenancy. Did the landlords fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition?

Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) places an obligation on a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. A breach of section 45(1)(a) entitles the tenant to compensation. A breach is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200 may be payable.

Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement 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.

The tenants claim that the carpets at the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition, in particular, they emitted a “bad” and musty odour. The tenants raised the issue with the property managers including issuing a ’14 day notice’ on 14 August 2024 requesting the carpets to be cleaned.

I am satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the carpets were not provided in a reasonably clean condition.

Mr Siebert said that Accomodation Centre had been managing the tenancy since 2012 and as far as he is aware the carpets have not been cleaned since 2020. He said they were not cleaned when the tenants requested it because it was not considered necessary. Ms Dishington supported his evidence saying that said that she did not notice any bad smell coming from the carpets when she completed the pre tenancy inspection report. However, she did not return after the tenancy commenced and after the tenants notified her of their concerns. Moreover, the tenants provided a report from Chem-Dry dated 22 September 2024, which records “some staining” and “definite musty smell”.

The tenants also claim that other areas of the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition and all rubbish was not removed.

Some of the areas complained of by the tenants, such as dust on the top of curtain tracks, spider egg sacks in folds of curtains and under the outside edge of windows (which are only visible when the window is opened), are minor matters and do not, in my view, breach the requirement to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. However, I consider that some of the other matters complained of by the tenants including the wood burner not being clean out and grease and the like not being removed from the rangehood are matters that a landlord should have attended to bring the premises to a reasonably clean standard.

In the circumstances I consider the sum of $1,000.00 reasonable to compensate the tenants for the breach by the landlords to not provide the premises, but particularly the carpets, in a reasonably clean standard.

There was no dispute that there was some rubbish on the premises when the tenancy commenced. The rubbish included an oven (which had been removed from the house when a new oven was installed), loose timber and iron in the carport, bits of trellis, bottles and the like along the driveway by the fence, ‘wet’ rubbish in the garage, rusty clothesline wire, glass, dog faeces ,and garden waste including large branches in the back yard. The oven was removed on 11 August (nine days after the tenancy commenced). The tenants removed some of the other rubbish themselves and the remaining rubbish was removed by the landlords approximately 19 days after the tenancy commenced.

I have no hesitation in finding that the landlords are in breach of their obligation to provide the premises in a reasonably tidy condition. The rubbish should have been removed before the tenancy commenced. Taking into account all the circumstances, including that the rubbish was removed reasonably soon after the tenancy commenced, I consider $300.00 reasonable to compensate the tenants for the breach.

The claim for failing to provide the lawns in a reasonably tidy manner is dismissed. I accept Mr Siebert’s evidence that the lawns were mowed three days before the tenancy commenced and would likely required mowing again soon after because of normal growth during that time. Moreover, there is no evidence to support that the tenants asked the landlords to remedy the issue before doing the work themselves. The claim for comonesation for their time to mow the lawns is therefore dismissed.

I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate for the failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I accept that the landlords genuinely considered the carpets and other areas to be reasonably clean and therefore did not intend to commit the unlawful act. With respect to the rubbish, the landlord did arrange to have it removed soon after the tenancy commenced and there is some evidence of discussions and agreement for the removal of the oven after the tenancy commenced.

Did the landlord breach the requirement to repair and maintain the premises?

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Once the landlord becomes aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.

A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) may entitle the tenant to compensation. It is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.

There was no dispute that, on 16 August, the tenants requested repairs to the toilet. The tenants said that the problem with the toilet was the water would keep running into the bowl after the toilet was flushed. There was also no dispute that the landlords did not respond to the request until 2 October 2024 and the tenants had by then fixed the problem themselves (approximately three weeks after 16 August). Mr Siebert said that the delay was due to the owner wanting to organise their own plumber and because it was not considered to be an urgent matter.

I find that the nearly two-month delay in responding to the tenants’ request for repair to the toilet is unreasonable in the circumstances and an award of compensation is appropriate here. In the circumstances I consider $50.00 reasonable. I have taken into account that the problem appears to have been relatively minor and the landlord did eventually respond.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Given the minor nature of the problem and that it was remedied within a reasonable time, albeit by the tenants themselves, I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. Did the landlords fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards with respect to draughts?

The tenants claim that the premises are subject to unreasonable draughts. However, the Healthy Homes assessment report completed in 2021 records that no draughts were identified, and the tenants accept that they did not tell the landlords of their concerns (and therefore the need for repairs). The landlords were therefore not given the opportunity to remedy the issues or complete any necessary repairs.

This claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlords misrepresent the tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlords misrepresented the tenancy by not telling them that it had been a “gang house” and that it was contaminated by methamphetamine.

Mr Siebert denies that it was ever a ‘gang house’ and the tenants did not give sufficient evidence to establish that it was. This claim is therefore dismissed.

On 19 August 2024, the tenants had the premises tested for methamphetamine. The report by Meth Test Canterbury Ltd records that testing of the 10 samples show a composite result of 0.2μg/100cm². This is below the NZ Standard of

5μg/100cm and well below the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm² as determined by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards”. The Gluckman standard is the standards generally applied by the Tribunal applications involving methamphetamine use, and it is only when the testing shows results over 15 μg/100cm² that the Tribunal considers the premises to be contaminated.

Thus, the evidence provided does not support the claim that the premises are contaminated by methamphetamine. Accordingly there was no duty on the landlords to tell the tenants of any contamination before they agreed to the tenancy.

The claim that the landlords misrepresented the tenancy is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee

The tenants have been partially successful in their claims and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The tenants have been substantially successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply.

I therefore order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999129 — net $1,377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Not reasonably clean and tidy	$1,300.00	Not reasonably clean and tidy
Compensation: Repair and maintenance - toilet	$50.00	Repair and maintenance - toilet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,377.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts Asset Managers As Agent For R & P Patel must pay [The tenant/s] $1,377.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dishington and Mr Siebert represented the landlords.

The tenants also applied for work orders (to clean the carpets and repair the toilet), and for compensation and/or exemplary damages for unlawful entry but they withdrew these claims at the hearing.

I am satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the carpets were not provided in a reasonably clean condition.

The tenants also claim that other areas of the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition and all rubbish was not removed.

Did the landlord breach the requirement to repair and maintain the premises?

A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) may entitle the tenant to compensation. It is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.

This claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlords misrepresent the tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlords misrepresented the tenancy by not telling them that it had been a “gang house” and that it was contaminated by methamphetamine.

Mr Siebert denies that it was ever a ‘gang house’ and the tenants did not give sufficient evidence to establish that it was. This claim is therefore dismissed.

The claim that the landlords misrepresented the tenancy is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee

The tenants have been partially successful in their claims and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The tenants have been substantially successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply.

I therefore order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999129 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999129 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the requirement to repair and maintain the premises?

Did the landlords misrepresent the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the requirement to repair and maintain the premises?

Did the landlords misrepresent the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions