How much money was awarded in case 5037128?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Lock Fee: $443.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $15.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5037128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5037128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5037128?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $780.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Lock Fee: $443.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $15.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5037128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5037128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351225-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 209, 2 Turakina Street, Grey Lynn, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5037128 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5037128 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 5037128 — net $80.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement insurance excess x 4	$1,000.00		Carpet replacement insurance excess x 4
Water rates	$15.80		Water rates
Repairs: Wall damage	$115.00		Repairs: Wall damage
Exemplary damages: Termination without grounds		$780.00	Termination without grounds
Refund lock fee		$443.25	Refund lock fee
Total award	$1,303.30	$1,223.25
Net award	$80.05
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$80.05

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $80.05 [The tenant/s]: $3,039.95

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 18 April 2023 and was for a fixed term ending on 18 April 2024. The tenancy was renewed from 19 April 2024 with an end date of 17 April 2025.

The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation in relation to a lock invoice and exemplary damages in relation to the end of the tenancy.

The landlord applied for compensation in relation to carpet cleaning, carpet replacement, water rates, skirting board damage and locks. Tenant application

The tenant claims $443.25 which is the balance of a lock invoice that she paid. The invoice relates to an incident where the tenant was unable to re-enter the tenancy due to the lock not working. Originally the invoice amounted to $1,443.25 but was reduced by the locksmith when he refunded $1,000.00 to the tenant.

The incident occurred on 17 February 2024, which was a Saturday. The tenant says she contacted the Property Management company, but they were unable to assist as it was a Saturday. The Building Manager was also unavailable to assist. The only option available for the tenant was to call a locksmith which is what she did.

When the tenant asked to be reimbursed for the cost the landlord questioned the cost and began attempts to contact the locksmith to get details of what was wrong with the lock and to query the amount of the bill. The landlord also contacted the insurance company. The landlord did not reimburse the tenant at any stage.

Section 46(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states, “The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.”

The invoice states, “A replacement was necessary due to a faulty door mechanism. The pricing reflects the associated fees for the new mechanism and lock. Additionally, the entire process took more than an hour and a half.”

Section 45(1)(d)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that “the landlord shall compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent...”

The landlord is responsible for maintenance of the lock and should reimburse the tenant for any cost to her. As the locksmith reimbursed the tenant for $1,000.00 of the invoice the amount outstanding is $443.25 which is ordered.

One of the main issues with this tenancy is the tenant’s two dogs. One is a small to medium size dog which the tenant has had since the beginning of the tenancy on a part time basis. The second dog is a bit bigger and was obtained by the tenant in March 2024.

The Tenancy Agreement and the Renewal of a Fixed Term Tenancy documents do not record that the tenant has a dog in the premises. The landlord said that it became aware of the first dog in August 2023, but the tenant said that the Property Manager had verbally approved her request for a dog when she viewed the premises. I accept that the landlord was aware of the tenant having at least one dog since the beginning of the tenancy.

At the hearing the landlord’s evidence was unclear. At first I was told that the landlord did not know about the dogs and never saw a dog in the apartment until August 2024 and then it turned out that the landlord knew about one of the dogs since the beginning of the tenancy. While the landlord did not agree in writing for the tenant to have a dog at the premises the landlord’s failure to take any action against the tenant meant that the landlord had essentially agreed to the dog’s presence.

I note that during the tenancy the landlord carried out three monthly inspections of the premises and the tenant said that she was present on all occasions and the dogs were often present.

The landlord said that the problem with the dogs was when the landlord discovered that there were two dogs at the premises. The landlord said that this was in August 2024 when the issue was raised by the Body Corporate. However, I viewed a video from an inspection carried out by the Property Manager in May 2024. Sitting in the crate in the lounge is the dog that the landlord said it was not aware of. It is therefore quite possible that the landlord knew about the second dog before receiving the complaint from the Body Corporate.

The landlord confirms that it only provided the tenant with a copy of the Body Corporate rules in August 2024, 16 months after the tenancy commenced. The rules state at clause 3.21:

There is no evidence that the landlord sought written consent from the Body Corporate for the tenant to have a dog at the premises.

The Body Corporate wrote to the landlord in relation to complaints about the tenant’s dogs. The Body Corporate was also aware of the tenant having the smaller dog when she moved in as the email states, “When the tenant moved in she arrived with the smaller dog, for which no consent had been sought, but because it seemed well-behaved no action was taken....The larger dog arrived recently, is quite young, and would probably not have gained consent of the Body Corporate Committee, had it been sought.”

On 15 August 2024 the landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy (section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The notice records the breach as “Have pets in the property”.

The tenant was not prepared to rehome the second dog so felt she had no option but to leave the tenancy. The written communication from the landlord also suggested that the landlord was terminating the tenancy and had authority to do so.

For example, in an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 15 August 2024 it states, “Thank you for your conversation today. I completely understand your situation, and I’m sorry to say that the owner can no longer accept pets at the property. I encourage you to begin looking for a new place that allows pets within these two month.”

A later email dated 30 August 2024 states, “As we discussed, if the landlord decides to proceed with terminating the tenancy. However, please be aware that if the issue is not remedied within the next 14 days, the next step is we need to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to seek termination of the tenancy instead of issuing the 90 day notice.”

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord’s actions at the end of the tenancy suggested that she gave notice for the tenancy to terminate. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant believed that the landlord was entitled to end the tenancy because she did not comply with the 14-day notice in relation to the dogs. In her application to the Tribunal the tenant states that she wants to “...formally contest the termination of tenancy notice...” issued by the landlord.

The landlord had acquiesced in the tenant having at least one dog at the premises and the 14-day notice is misleading because it suggests that the tenant had a dog at the premises without consent. The landlord had failed to comply with the Body Corporate Rules or make the tenant aware of the rules. Therefore, when the Body Corporate complained the landlord took steps to end the tenancy by misleadingly giving notice to remove the dogs after consenting to the tenant having at least one of the dogs in the premises.

The evidence suggests that the landlord had intended to give the tenant the impression that termination would be the outcome if she kept the two dogs in the premises. This is not necessarily the likely outcome if the landlord had applied to the Tribunal given the landlord’s misleading actions in relation to the first dog. The tenant had to look for alternate accommodation within a short time frame. She said at the hearing that she did not want to move from the tenancy but felt she had no option.

The landlord was at fault by not recording that it consented to one or both dogs at the premises and seeking the consent of the Body Corporate. The tenant had lived at the premises for sixteen months before the landlord took any action in relation to the tenant’s dogs.

It is in the public interest for tenants to be able to have quiet enjoyment of the premises (see section 38) and sometimes that will include having a pet, especially when the landlord has agreed to the presence of the pet.

I consider that an award of $780.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. Landlord application

The landlord claimed for carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy. That is awarded.

The landlord claimed for carpet replacement because the cleaning did not remove the smell and it was discovered that there were urine stains on the carpet. The landlord claimed insurance and that was approved for four areas. The insurance excess is $250.00 per event and as the insurance company approved four areas the total insurance excess is $1,000.00. That amount is awarded.

The tenant agreed to the water rates claim of $15.80 so that amount is awarded.

The landlord claimed for damage to the skirting board caused by the dogs. The amount of $115.00 is awarded.

The landlord claimed for damage to the ceiling in the kitchen. It is not clear what caused the damage and therefore I am not convinced that it was caused by the tenant. There was no evidence produced from the contractor as to what the damage could have been. Due to a lack of evidence that claim is dismissed.

The landlord claimed for lock replacement because the new lock obtained by the tenant as referred to above had to be rekeyed to the system. As mentioned earlier, the landlord is responsible for maintenance of locks. Therefore, that claim is dismissed.

The bond is released after taking account of the awards that I have made.

As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both parties.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5037128 — net $80.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet replacement insurance excess x 4	$1,000.00		Carpet replacement insurance excess x 4
Water rates	$15.80		Water rates
Repairs: Wall damage	$115.00		Repairs: Wall damage
Exemplary damages: Termination without grounds		$780.00	Termination without grounds
Refund lock fee		$443.25	Refund lock fee
Total award	$1,303.30	$1,223.25
Net award	$80.05
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$80.05