What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5027471 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 5027471?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of enjoyment and…: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027471?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5027471 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 5027471?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of enjoyment and…: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027471?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5027471 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027471 — net $60.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$140.00		Carpet cleaning
Compensation: loss of enjoyment and utility		$200.00	loss of enjoyment and utility
Total award	$140.00	$200.00
Net award		$60.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$60.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $60.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two representatives appeared for the landlord; one of the tenants attended.
The tenancy started on 1 December 2020 and ended on 3 September 2024. Generally, the parties appear to have enjoyed a cordial relationship, but there were some aggravations towards the end of the tenancy that have resulted in these applications.
The landlord has sought the cost of professional carpet cleaning - $140.00. The tenants have sought compensation of $400.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to a faulty induction cook-top and due to the premises having worn carpet, with an area in front of the sliding door entrance threadbare. The tenants also seek their bond. Issues
The Tribunal must decide: •Is the landlord entitled to the cost of professional carpet cleaning? •Have the tenants proved their claim for compensation? Relevant legal considerations
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
Section 45 RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Analysis The landlord’s claim
The tenants had the carpet cleaned by using a supermarket rug doctor. The landlord had the carpets cleaned professionally. Was that reasonable?
The Tribunal considers that the landlord’s decision to have the carpets professionally cleaned was reasonable.
First, the tenants agreed to that when the landlord allowed them to have a cat (initially the tenancy agreement did not allow pets). Second, when animals are kept inside, as the tenants’ cat was, the Tribunal often considers it appropriate for the carpets to be professionally cleaned and flea treated, as was the case here. That is reasonable because other people who later reside at the premises might have an allergy to cat fur and professional cleaning ensures that the carpets are properly cleaned. So, the phrase ‘reasonably clean’ must be considered according to the circumstances.
The landlord’s claim for $140.00 is proved by the production of an invoice. The tenants’ claim
The tenant gave evidence that the induction cook-top became faulty from mid- April 2024 when 2 of the indicator lights failed completely and 2 could not be read. The landlord had the stove inspected on 1 May 2024, following which nothing much happened.
The tenant said they were concerned about the possibility of fire (one of the tenants was particularly anxious) and about the risk of injury to their cat since it was not clear whether the elements were hot or not. They believed the owners of the premises were driven by price.
The landlord’s representative said they were let down by their contractor and they were unaware for quite a while that a part had to be sourced from Australia. They accepted that the tenants suffered some inconvenience, although the stove top could be safely used and there was a wall switch that could turn off the appliance.
I accept that the tenants experienced some inconvenience from the faulty stove top, but the appliance could still be used and was able to be turned off at the switch, so the inconvenience was limited. The period at issue was about 5 months.
The tenants were aware that the carpet was generally worn due to age and there was a small threadbare area in front of the sliding door. That is shown in the entry photos.
Carpet replacement was not a condition of the tenancy, so even if there were discussion about possible carpet replacement, that the carpets were not replaced is not a landlord breach.
The worn area in front of the front door was more worn by the end of the tenancy and has since been replaced with a rectangular piece of vinyl.
The tenants (sensibly) put a mat over the worn area. The tenant said the worn area made it difficult to vacuum clean and was embarrassing when they had family or guests visit.
I find that this issue is relatively minor; it was an aggravation (but known about at the start of the tenancy) rather than a failure to repair by the landlord.
I find that compensation of $200.00 is fair and reasonable in this case both for the inconvenience caused by the faulty cook top switches, and the minor carpet issue. That is what I order the landlord to pay the tenants. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants.
The landlord will pay the tenants $60.00 being the net difference between the parties’ successful claims.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fees. Each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. Each is entitled to a name suppression order as the applications are successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027471 — net $60.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$140.00		Carpet cleaning
Compensation: loss of enjoyment and utility		$200.00	loss of enjoyment and utility
Total award	$140.00	$200.00
Net award		$60.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$60.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $60.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two representatives appeared for the landlord; one of the tenants attended.
The tenancy started on 1 December 2020 and ended on 3 September 2024. Generally, the parties appear to have enjoyed a cordial relationship, but there were some aggravations towards the end of the tenancy that have resulted in these applications.
The landlord has sought the cost of professional carpet cleaning - $140.00. The tenants have sought compensation of $400.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to a faulty induction cook-top and due to the premises having worn carpet, with an area in front of the sliding door entrance threadbare. The tenants also seek their bond. Issues
The Tribunal must decide: •Is the landlord entitled to the cost of professional carpet cleaning? •Have the tenants proved their claim for compensation? Relevant legal considerations
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
Section 45 RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Analysis The landlord’s claim
The tenants had the carpet cleaned by using a supermarket rug doctor. The landlord had the carpets cleaned professionally. Was that reasonable?
The Tribunal considers that the landlord’s decision to have the carpets professionally cleaned was reasonable.
First, the tenants agreed to that when the landlord allowed them to have a cat (initially the tenancy agreement did not allow pets). Second, when animals are kept inside, as the tenants’ cat was, the Tribunal often considers it appropriate for the carpets to be professionally cleaned and flea treated, as was the case here. That is reasonable because other people who later reside at the premises might have an allergy to cat fur and professional cleaning ensures that the carpets are properly cleaned. So, the phrase ‘reasonably clean’ must be considered according to the circumstances.
The landlord’s claim for $140.00 is proved by the production of an invoice. The tenants’ claim
The tenant gave evidence that the induction cook-top became faulty from mid- April 2024 when 2 of the indicator lights failed completely and 2 could not be read. The landlord had the stove inspected on 1 May 2024, following which nothing much happened.
The tenant said they were concerned about the possibility of fire (one of the tenants was particularly anxious) and about the risk of injury to their cat since it was not clear whether the elements were hot or not. They believed the owners of the premises were driven by price.
The landlord’s representative said they were let down by their contractor and they were unaware for quite a while that a part had to be sourced from Australia. They accepted that the tenants suffered some inconvenience, although the stove top could be safely used and there was a wall switch that could turn off the appliance.
I accept that the tenants experienced some inconvenience from the faulty stove top, but the appliance could still be used and was able to be turned off at the switch, so the inconvenience was limited. The period at issue was about 5 months.
The tenants were aware that the carpet was generally worn due to age and there was a small threadbare area in front of the sliding door. That is shown in the entry photos.
Carpet replacement was not a condition of the tenancy, so even if there were discussion about possible carpet replacement, that the carpets were not replaced is not a landlord breach.
The worn area in front of the front door was more worn by the end of the tenancy and has since been replaced with a rectangular piece of vinyl.
The tenants (sensibly) put a mat over the worn area. The tenant said the worn area made it difficult to vacuum clean and was embarrassing when they had family or guests visit.
I find that this issue is relatively minor; it was an aggravation (but known about at the start of the tenancy) rather than a failure to repair by the landlord.
I find that compensation of $200.00 is fair and reasonable in this case both for the inconvenience caused by the faulty cook top switches, and the minor carpet issue. That is what I order the landlord to pay the tenants. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenants.
The landlord will pay the tenants $60.00 being the net difference between the parties’ successful claims.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fees. Each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. Each is entitled to a name suppression order as the applications are successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027471 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027471 — Cleanliness

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