What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007888 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 5007888?

Break Lease Costs: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,090.81 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $70.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007888?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10994790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007888 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 5007888?

Break Lease Costs: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,090.81 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $70.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007888?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10994790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit 3, 21 Clarence Street South, Addington, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007888 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007888 — net $1,775.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation S66(1) RTA	$1,090.81	Compensation S66(1) RTA
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$115.00	Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$70.00	Rubbish removal
Break lease costs	$300.00	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,775.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,775.31

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [the tenant] at Unit 3, 21 Clarence Street South, Addington, Christchurch 8024 is reduced so that it ended on 10 September 2024.
[The tenant} must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as Agent for M Fox $1,775.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claim for painting costs is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6495543-010) as follows. a. $1,775.31to Grenadier Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for M Fox. b. $304.69 to [the tenant].

Reasons

Representatives from Grenadier Rent Shop attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy early. The Tenant’s Application Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy from 1 November 2023 to 5 November 2024.
On 7 July 2024 the tenant applied for early release from the tenancy because his short-term employment contract had ended and had not been able to find other employment. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy early subject to finding another tenant and other standard terms.
On 3 August the tenant suffered a nasty assault as he was returning to the premises. He was attacked by a group of youths, and he was punched to the ground and kicked. He suffered an injury to his ribs.
The assault had a greater psychological effect on him than the physical injuries. He became very fearful of living in the premises and of going out in the area. He feared that he would be recognised and attacked again and that the premises would be targeted. He said that one member of the group who attacked him recorded the event and posted it online.
He left the premises on 10 September and moved away from Christchurch to stay with a friend.
The landlord found another tenant for the premises and that tenancy started on 11 October.
The tenant said that it would have been difficult for him to continue staying in the premises and paying rent in any event without employment. He does now have basic employment and it is reasonable to assume that he would have been able to find such employment in Christchurch if he had stayed here.
The tenant said that the hardship that he has suffered and continues to suffer is mental as well as financial. My impression is that the mental toll on him is worse than the financial consequences. Discussion and Decision
There was plainly an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The landlord does not contest that.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. As well as the obvious financial hardship, I accept that the outcome of this application is likely to influence the tenant’s ongoing mental state.
There was no evidence about what hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
I find, therefore, that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
I therefore reduce the term of the tenancy so that it ended on 10 September, when the tenant vacated the premises.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that it is appropriate to award compensation to the landlord for the loss of rent between 10 September and 10 October. The tenant was the victim of a nasty and unprovoked assault which was not his fault. It has significantly affected him, but it has also affected the landlord in terms of the lost rent. The landlord is also an innocent party.
Possibly, the tenant would have had to make this application in any event because of his financial situation. I note that his loss of work would not have been accepted as the type of unforeseen change of circumstances that would allow the Tribunal to end the tenancy early.
The fair result, in my view, is that the rent arrears are shared equally between the parties. I therefore award compensation of $1.090.81 to the landlord. The Landlord’s Application Rent
Rent was paid up to 10 October and so there is no award of rent arrears. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. Claims
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s other claims, but I have considered them on the basis that the landlord must formally prove them.
I have dismissed the claim for painting costs. No painting was required because the painter found that all that was needed was to wipe a “chalky” substance off the wall. In other words, to clean the wall.
The only basis on which this claim could succeed is if the landlord could prove that there was damage to the premises during the tenancy that went beyond fair wear and tear. Plainly, there was no damage and so there can be no award.
The tenant commented that the claim for reletting costs was unreasonably high. S44A if the Act provides that a landlord who consents to the termination of a tenancy is entitled to recover any reasonably incurred expenses in respect of the termination. That is what I had in mind when I was discussing the landlord’s claim for reletting costs during the hearing.
But on reflexion, I find that the situation falls to be considered under s66(2) of the Act as a loss that the Tribunal may compensate the landlord for. That gives the Tribunal more discretion in terms of what it can award.
Because the tenancy has been terminated near the end of the fixed term, and the reletting costs would have been incurred soon after in any event, I have awarded only a proportion of the costs.
I find that the other claims are proved and because they were not disputed, there is no need for more detail.
Because the landlord has had substantial success on their claim, I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
In all the circumstances it is appropriate to supress the tenant’s name. He has been through an ordeal and the potential consequences of publishing his name in this decision far outweigh any public interest in publishing his name. Result
The bond will be split between the parties to give effect to this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007888 — net $1,775.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation S66(1) RTA	$1,090.81	Compensation S66(1) RTA
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$115.00	Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$70.00	Rubbish removal
Break lease costs	$300.00	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,775.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,775.31

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [the tenant] at Unit 3, 21 Clarence Street South, Addington, Christchurch 8024 is reduced so that it ended on 10 September 2024.
[The tenant} must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as Agent for M Fox $1,775.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claim for painting costs is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6495543-010) as follows. a. $1,775.31to Grenadier Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for M Fox. b. $304.69 to [the tenant].

Reasons

Representatives from Grenadier Rent Shop attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy early. The Tenant’s Application Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy from 1 November 2023 to 5 November 2024.
On 7 July 2024 the tenant applied for early release from the tenancy because his short-term employment contract had ended and had not been able to find other employment. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy early subject to finding another tenant and other standard terms.
On 3 August the tenant suffered a nasty assault as he was returning to the premises. He was attacked by a group of youths, and he was punched to the ground and kicked. He suffered an injury to his ribs.
The assault had a greater psychological effect on him than the physical injuries. He became very fearful of living in the premises and of going out in the area. He feared that he would be recognised and attacked again and that the premises would be targeted. He said that one member of the group who attacked him recorded the event and posted it online.
He left the premises on 10 September and moved away from Christchurch to stay with a friend.
The landlord found another tenant for the premises and that tenancy started on 11 October.
The tenant said that it would have been difficult for him to continue staying in the premises and paying rent in any event without employment. He does now have basic employment and it is reasonable to assume that he would have been able to find such employment in Christchurch if he had stayed here.
The tenant said that the hardship that he has suffered and continues to suffer is mental as well as financial. My impression is that the mental toll on him is worse than the financial consequences. Discussion and Decision
There was plainly an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The landlord does not contest that.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. As well as the obvious financial hardship, I accept that the outcome of this application is likely to influence the tenant’s ongoing mental state.
There was no evidence about what hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
I find, therefore, that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
I therefore reduce the term of the tenancy so that it ended on 10 September, when the tenant vacated the premises.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that it is appropriate to award compensation to the landlord for the loss of rent between 10 September and 10 October. The tenant was the victim of a nasty and unprovoked assault which was not his fault. It has significantly affected him, but it has also affected the landlord in terms of the lost rent. The landlord is also an innocent party.
Possibly, the tenant would have had to make this application in any event because of his financial situation. I note that his loss of work would not have been accepted as the type of unforeseen change of circumstances that would allow the Tribunal to end the tenancy early.
The fair result, in my view, is that the rent arrears are shared equally between the parties. I therefore award compensation of $1.090.81 to the landlord. The Landlord’s Application Rent
Rent was paid up to 10 October and so there is no award of rent arrears. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. Claims
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s other claims, but I have considered them on the basis that the landlord must formally prove them.
I have dismissed the claim for painting costs. No painting was required because the painter found that all that was needed was to wipe a “chalky” substance off the wall. In other words, to clean the wall.
The only basis on which this claim could succeed is if the landlord could prove that there was damage to the premises during the tenancy that went beyond fair wear and tear. Plainly, there was no damage and so there can be no award.
The tenant commented that the claim for reletting costs was unreasonably high. S44A if the Act provides that a landlord who consents to the termination of a tenancy is entitled to recover any reasonably incurred expenses in respect of the termination. That is what I had in mind when I was discussing the landlord’s claim for reletting costs during the hearing.
But on reflexion, I find that the situation falls to be considered under s66(2) of the Act as a loss that the Tribunal may compensate the landlord for. That gives the Tribunal more discretion in terms of what it can award.
Because the tenancy has been terminated near the end of the fixed term, and the reletting costs would have been incurred soon after in any event, I have awarded only a proportion of the costs.
I find that the other claims are proved and because they were not disputed, there is no need for more detail.
Because the landlord has had substantial success on their claim, I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
In all the circumstances it is appropriate to supress the tenant’s name. He has been through an ordeal and the potential consequences of publishing his name in this decision far outweigh any public interest in publishing his name. Result
The bond will be split between the parties to give effect to this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007888 — Cleanliness at Unit 3, 21 Clarence Street South, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007888 — Cleanliness at Unit 3, 21 Clarence Street South, Addington, Christchurch

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