What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5046665 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression orders are made in favour of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 5046665?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5046665?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5046665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11203374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5046665 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression orders are made in favour of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 5046665?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5046665?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5046665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11203374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5046665 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5046665 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Order

Suppression orders are made in favour of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,951.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced in March 2022 and ended in October 2024 upon landlord notice. [The landlord/s] has made claims for damages and [The tenant/s] have cross applied for compensation due to what they consider an unlawful eviction.
I discuss each claim separately below taking into account the burden of proof which is on each applicant for their claims. The standard is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. Landlord’s claims

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

[The landlord/s] claims compensation for having to clean the house herself as she says it was not left reasonably clean and tidy when the tenants vacated. She says it took her approximately 10 hours to clean the property before she could move back in. This included time and cost to get a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
The tenants accept there was some further cleaning to be done but not a lot. They provided photos of how they had left the property and said they did not get to quite finish as the moving was undertaken in a rush.
At the end of a tenancy section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This statutory obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord.
The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The photos indicate that there was still a little bit of cleaning to be undertaken to return the premise to a reasonably clean and tidy state, in particular wiping the fridge, some windows and some areas of the floor. There was not however a lot more required as [The tenant/s] had already undertaken extensive cleaning. I accept that they did not want to leave this cleaning however were very pressured and stretched at the time.
I consider that an award of $50 is reasonable which equates to two hours of [The landlord/s] time. Any cleaning in excess of two hours would take the property to a state that would be above what is statutorily expected of an exiting tenant. In particular there was no evidence that the carpets required a cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the property including a large hole in the bedroom door, holes in some walls and the reinstatement of the gate that had come off.
[The tenant/s] accept the damage which was caused primarily by their children who have special needs however say they were not able to rectify it as they had wished, as they did not have enough time. Their evidence is that although they have been given a notice to end the tenancy in August (with an end date of 7 October) they had been led to believe they had more time. In particular [Tenant 1] says she was told they had until Christmas and [Tenant 2] says [The landlord/s] said they had until mid-November to vacate. Therefore, when they were told mid-October that the end date would remain at 30 October, they were in a rush to find a new home and could not repair the damages as they intended.
[The landlord/s] submitted a copy of the initial termination notice dated 6 August and a signed agreement to extend the vacate date until 30 October. She agrees [The tenant/s] had asked for an extension early October, but she had declined as she had her own arrangements in place.
Having carefully assessed the evidence I find the amount sought (baring the deduction I discuss below) proven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and accepted by [The tenant/s] who say they would have rectified it had they had time. I accept that the damage was not caused intentionally and had they had time [The tenant/s] would have repaired it; it was sadly an extremely stressful time for them.
The initial end date of 7 October was known since August which is in line with the statutory requirements laid out in section 51(1)(a) of the RTA. The extension was agreed to by all and was merely an extension. There is no evidence of agreed extensions past the 30 th of October. Further, some of the damage occurred well before the termination notice was given.
If a tenant vacates a premise with damage that needs to be repaired or cleaning that needs to be undertaken, it is at the landlord’s discretion how that work is done. They may allow a tenant back to rectify the issues or they may take on the cost themselves and claim that back from the tenants. As the tenancy has ended that is a choice purely for a landlord.
There was one area of damage that I do not consider [The tenant/s] solely liable for and that is the bathroom damage. This has occurred because there was a towel rail located on the wall behind the door and no door stopper. Therefore, if the was not opened carefully it could hit the rail and damage it.
I accept [Tenant 1’s] evidence that they raised the issue with [The landlord/s], and she said she would install a door stopper but did not. [The tenant/s] son has been rough with the door which has resulted in the door being quite extensively damaged by the rail. [Tenant 2] had removed the handrail and patched the area, although the job was not fully completed.
Given that a contributor to the damage has been the lack of a door stopper and that [Tenant 2] has had to remove the handrail to mitigate further damage, I consider it reasonable that the parties share this cost. [The tenant/s] son has certainly been rough with the door which is careless damage, but the damage may well have not been as extensive if there had been a door stopper. Accordingly, I find it reasonable 1 to deduct $200 from this claim to reflect the landlord’s share.
Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for the claim as sought. Each individual claim is under the section 49B cap 2 and I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. This is because a landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in but for the breach, and should not be better or worse off. Tenants’ claim

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

[The tenant/s] consider that [The landlord/s] ended their tenancy because she did not like their children’s behaviour, not because she genuinely wanted to move into the home. For the duration of the tenancy [The landlord/s] had been residing in the unit below the main home and [The tenant/s] submit that she had no reason to move up to the main home other than to force them to vacate.
They have two reasons for this view: i. The termination notice was given soon after they told her of their son’s newest diagnosis which had resulted in increased aggression from him. His health had worsened over the early part of 2024 and as such his aggression and behaviour had worsened. They are aware she did not approve of him. ii. [The landlord/s] sent a text to them saying the property had to be clean for the ‘next tenants’. 1 Pursuant to section 85 of the RTA 2 Where damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $400 and the weekly rent was $660.
[The landlord/s] evidence is that she has moved into the main house as she always intended to do. She says her occupation below was only ever meant to be short term given it gets a lot less sun than the main home. She has provided evidence of her movers cost, and her power and internet bills in the home.
[The landlord/s] accepts she was aware [The tenant/s]’s son’s behaviour had got worse but did not know about his diagnosis until she served the termination notice. She says the timing was not ideal, but she did want to move back into her home. She says the text message was poorly worded, but she was trying to explain that the house needed to be left at exit level rather than inspection level. The law & discussion
Pursuant to section 60AA of the RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate a tenancy, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation 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.
This section was inserted into the RTA by Parliament in February 2021 3 in an effort to provide tenants with increased security of tenure and to curb the practice of landlords ending tenancies because they did not like the tenants or ending them without reason. This section supports the notion that landlords should not require a tenant to leave their home lightly.
Section 51 of the RTA sets out the reasons a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy. It directs that the reason must be stated clearly so that a tenant knows why their tenancy is ending, and that a justified reason exists. By setting a high award of exemplary damages for breaching this section, Parliament has signalled that there should be a significant consequence for landlords who breach these obligations.
Other Tribunal decisions have held that landlords who issue notice to terminate a tenancy must provide the Tribunal with some evidence to substantiate the reason given in the notice. It will not generally be enough to discharge the burden of proof required to provide only a copy of the written notice and oral assertions that the reason is genuine. There is always supporting documentation available and as such it should be provided.
The right of termination asserted here is based in s51(1)(a) RTA and requires [The landlord/s] to have a valid intention to move into the premise and then reside there for at least 90 days. The evidence must therefore establish that [The landlord/s] is genuine and committed to this move; it is not to be undertaken without full consideration or in a disguised effort to end the tenancy for other reasons. 3 by section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 (2020 No 59)
I accept the evidence that [The landlord/s] has moved back into the home. Her reasons for doing so are her own however I expect were partly motivated by [The tenant/s] family circumstances given they lived in such close proximity. Be that as it may, she has moved back in and there is no evidence she will vacate within the 90 days timeframe and that is what section 51(1)(a) requires.
Accordingly, I do not find it established that [The landlord/s] terminated the tenancy knowing that she was doing so unlawfully, and this claim must be dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.

Should suppression orders be made?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.
As I consider both parties at least partly successful in their positions, and given this decision discusses the health of [The tenant/s] son, I allow both parties’ applications for suppression.

Order

Suppression orders are made in favour of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,951.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced in March 2022 and ended in October 2024 upon landlord notice. [The landlord/s] has made claims for damages and [The tenant/s] have cross applied for compensation due to what they consider an unlawful eviction.
I discuss each claim separately below taking into account the burden of proof which is on each applicant for their claims. The standard is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. Landlord’s claims

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

[The landlord/s] claims compensation for having to clean the house herself as she says it was not left reasonably clean and tidy when the tenants vacated. She says it took her approximately 10 hours to clean the property before she could move back in. This included time and cost to get a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
The tenants accept there was some further cleaning to be done but not a lot. They provided photos of how they had left the property and said they did not get to quite finish as the moving was undertaken in a rush.
At the end of a tenancy section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This statutory obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord.
The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The photos indicate that there was still a little bit of cleaning to be undertaken to return the premise to a reasonably clean and tidy state, in particular wiping the fridge, some windows and some areas of the floor. There was not however a lot more required as [The tenant/s] had already undertaken extensive cleaning. I accept that they did not want to leave this cleaning however were very pressured and stretched at the time.
I consider that an award of $50 is reasonable which equates to two hours of [The landlord/s] time. Any cleaning in excess of two hours would take the property to a state that would be above what is statutorily expected of an exiting tenant. In particular there was no evidence that the carpets required a cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the property including a large hole in the bedroom door, holes in some walls and the reinstatement of the gate that had come off.
[The tenant/s] accept the damage which was caused primarily by their children who have special needs however say they were not able to rectify it as they had wished, as they did not have enough time. Their evidence is that although they have been given a notice to end the tenancy in August (with an end date of 7 October) they had been led to believe they had more time. In particular [Tenant 1] says she was told they had until Christmas and [Tenant 2] says [The landlord/s] said they had until mid-November to vacate. Therefore, when they were told mid-October that the end date would remain at 30 October, they were in a rush to find a new home and could not repair the damages as they intended.
[The landlord/s] submitted a copy of the initial termination notice dated 6 August and a signed agreement to extend the vacate date until 30 October. She agrees [The tenant/s] had asked for an extension early October, but she had declined as she had her own arrangements in place.
Having carefully assessed the evidence I find the amount sought (baring the deduction I discuss below) proven. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and accepted by [The tenant/s] who say they would have rectified it had they had time. I accept that the damage was not caused intentionally and had they had time [The tenant/s] would have repaired it; it was sadly an extremely stressful time for them.
The initial end date of 7 October was known since August which is in line with the statutory requirements laid out in section 51(1)(a) of the RTA. The extension was agreed to by all and was merely an extension. There is no evidence of agreed extensions past the 30 th of October. Further, some of the damage occurred well before the termination notice was given.
If a tenant vacates a premise with damage that needs to be repaired or cleaning that needs to be undertaken, it is at the landlord’s discretion how that work is done. They may allow a tenant back to rectify the issues or they may take on the cost themselves and claim that back from the tenants. As the tenancy has ended that is a choice purely for a landlord.
There was one area of damage that I do not consider [The tenant/s] solely liable for and that is the bathroom damage. This has occurred because there was a towel rail located on the wall behind the door and no door stopper. Therefore, if the was not opened carefully it could hit the rail and damage it.
I accept [Tenant 1’s] evidence that they raised the issue with [The landlord/s], and she said she would install a door stopper but did not. [The tenant/s] son has been rough with the door which has resulted in the door being quite extensively damaged by the rail. [Tenant 2] had removed the handrail and patched the area, although the job was not fully completed.
Given that a contributor to the damage has been the lack of a door stopper and that [Tenant 2] has had to remove the handrail to mitigate further damage, I consider it reasonable that the parties share this cost. [The tenant/s] son has certainly been rough with the door which is careless damage, but the damage may well have not been as extensive if there had been a door stopper. Accordingly, I find it reasonable 1 to deduct $200 from this claim to reflect the landlord’s share.
Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for the claim as sought. Each individual claim is under the section 49B cap 2 and I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. This is because a landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in but for the breach, and should not be better or worse off. Tenants’ claim

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

[The tenant/s] consider that [The landlord/s] ended their tenancy because she did not like their children’s behaviour, not because she genuinely wanted to move into the home. For the duration of the tenancy [The landlord/s] had been residing in the unit below the main home and [The tenant/s] submit that she had no reason to move up to the main home other than to force them to vacate.
They have two reasons for this view: i. The termination notice was given soon after they told her of their son’s newest diagnosis which had resulted in increased aggression from him. His health had worsened over the early part of 2024 and as such his aggression and behaviour had worsened. They are aware she did not approve of him. ii. [The landlord/s] sent a text to them saying the property had to be clean for the ‘next tenants’. 1 Pursuant to section 85 of the RTA 2 Where damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $400 and the weekly rent was $660.
[The landlord/s] evidence is that she has moved into the main house as she always intended to do. She says her occupation below was only ever meant to be short term given it gets a lot less sun than the main home. She has provided evidence of her movers cost, and her power and internet bills in the home.
[The landlord/s] accepts she was aware [The tenant/s]’s son’s behaviour had got worse but did not know about his diagnosis until she served the termination notice. She says the timing was not ideal, but she did want to move back into her home. She says the text message was poorly worded, but she was trying to explain that the house needed to be left at exit level rather than inspection level. The law & discussion
Pursuant to section 60AA of the RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate a tenancy, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation 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.
This section was inserted into the RTA by Parliament in February 2021 3 in an effort to provide tenants with increased security of tenure and to curb the practice of landlords ending tenancies because they did not like the tenants or ending them without reason. This section supports the notion that landlords should not require a tenant to leave their home lightly.
Section 51 of the RTA sets out the reasons a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy. It directs that the reason must be stated clearly so that a tenant knows why their tenancy is ending, and that a justified reason exists. By setting a high award of exemplary damages for breaching this section, Parliament has signalled that there should be a significant consequence for landlords who breach these obligations.
Other Tribunal decisions have held that landlords who issue notice to terminate a tenancy must provide the Tribunal with some evidence to substantiate the reason given in the notice. It will not generally be enough to discharge the burden of proof required to provide only a copy of the written notice and oral assertions that the reason is genuine. There is always supporting documentation available and as such it should be provided.
The right of termination asserted here is based in s51(1)(a) RTA and requires [The landlord/s] to have a valid intention to move into the premise and then reside there for at least 90 days. The evidence must therefore establish that [The landlord/s] is genuine and committed to this move; it is not to be undertaken without full consideration or in a disguised effort to end the tenancy for other reasons. 3 by section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 (2020 No 59)
I accept the evidence that [The landlord/s] has moved back into the home. Her reasons for doing so are her own however I expect were partly motivated by [The tenant/s] family circumstances given they lived in such close proximity. Be that as it may, she has moved back in and there is no evidence she will vacate within the 90 days timeframe and that is what section 51(1)(a) requires.
Accordingly, I do not find it established that [The landlord/s] terminated the tenancy knowing that she was doing so unlawfully, and this claim must be dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.

Should suppression orders be made?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest.
As I consider both parties at least partly successful in their positions, and given this decision discusses the health of [The tenant/s] son, I allow both parties’ applications for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5046665 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5046665 — Property damage

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?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Should suppression orders be made?

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?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Should suppression orders be made?