What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5075928 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name is suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5075928?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; STenant Break Lease Costs: $709.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11533093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5075928 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name is suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5075928?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; STenant Break Lease Costs: $709.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11533093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5075928 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5075928 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
sTenant Break lease costs	$709.55	sTenant Break lease costs
Carpet cleaning	$230.00	Carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenant’s name is suppressed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
[the tenant] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Graham and Annette Eltringham $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $939.55 (6034287-035) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Graham and Annette Eltringham immediately. DescriptionLandlordsTenant Break lease costs$709.55 Carpet cleaning$230.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$966.55 Less bond$939.55 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone.
The tenant claims compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment arising from the early termination of the tenancy and for the landlords unreasonably pursuing a claim for carpet cleaning costs.
The landlords claim break lease expenses and carpet cleaning costs. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term from March 2023 to March 2024. It ended in November 2024 after the tenant served a 28-day termination notice.
The tenancy agreement includes the words, “Pets Permitted: No”.
The tenant’s son lived with her in the premises every other week. The son got a puppy and in September 2024 the landlords became aware that the puppy was on the premises.
The tenant gave evidence, which I accept, that the puppy stayed at the premises for a few days every other week. She said that she had to allow that because her son said that he would not stay with her if he could not have the puppy with him as least for some of the week that he was with her.
The tenant confirmed the situation to the landlords who told her that she would have to exclude the puppy from the premises, or she would have to end the tenancy using the landlords’ standard break lease procedure.
For the reason just stated, the tenant would not exclude the puppy. She was not willing to follow the landlords’ break lease process either. So, on 30 September she gave the landlords notice to end the tenancy on 10 November. I note that a fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated early by such a notice.
The landlords reminded the tenant that the tenancy was for a fixed term and offered the break lease process which the tenant refused. The landlords then turned their attention to finding another tenant.
Fortunately, the landlords were able to find another tenant to move in shortly after the tenant vacated and there is no claim for rent.
Before the tenant vacated, she had the carpets professionally cleaned. On inspection of the premises the landlords found the carpet to be stained on some areas and they wished to have the stains removed.
They arranged for a contractor to test the stains and the test found that the stains were from animal urine. Their contractor recommended that the carpet should be cleaned to remove any remaining urine and any cleaning products before spot cleaning the stains. The landlords accepted that advice.
After some toing and froing, the tenant accepted liability for the spot cleaning but disputed the cost of the general carpet cleaning. Discussion and Decision The Tenant’s Claim Termination
The tenant submitted that the landlords sought to alter the terms of the tenancy by imposing a term that she could not have a pet on the premises under any circumstances. She said that her understanding was that the tenancy agreement prevented her from having a pet living with her in the premises, but it did not prevent her from having a pet on the premises occasionally. She referred to the stress that it would put her under if, for example, a friend wanted to bring a dog with her to the premises during a short visit.
In legal terms, the tenant is claiming that the landlords indicated that they would not adhere to the terms of the tenancy agreement in such a fundamental way that it amounted to a repudiation of the agreement which entitled her to end the tenancy for the landlords’ breach. That is based on a well-established contractual principle sometimes called repudiatory breach.
I cannot accept that the principle applies in this case for the following reasons.
Although the pet term in the agreement is minimalist, I think that reasonable people in the position of the parties would take it to mean simply that pets were not permitted on the premises. Whether that means not permitted under any circumstances is debatable, but not something that I have to decide. Whatever the outcome of that debate might be, I don’t see that it has practical relevance in this case. If a pet was on the premises for a short visit, say with a visiting friend, I doubt whether there would be an issue, and I would not expect the Tribunal to impose any sanction in relation to it.
I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case the pet term applied, and it was a breach of the agreement for the tenant to have the puppy on the premises for a few days every other week. The consequences of the pet being on the premises speak for themselves. A few days every other week is not a fleeting visit; it is having a pet living on the premises, albeit part time.
It follows that the landlords were justified in making clear to the tenant that they would not tolerate the situation.
Even if I had come to a different conclusion on that point, I would not have said that the tenant was justified in ending the agreement. The main reason being that if the tenant believed that she was entitled to have the dog on the premises she could have come to the Tribunal to have that resolved. That is what the Tribunal is there for. It was not necessary or reasonable for the tenant to take the extreme step of ending the agreement.
Whether or not the landlords were entitled to recover the carpet cleaning cost, they were entitled to claim them from the tenant. It is common for tenants to disagree with landlords’ claims for compensation. The Tribunal resolves such disputes every day and it would be an extreme case for the Tribunal to decide that by making a claim, the landlords was in breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and even more extreme for it to find that the tenant was entitled to end the tenancy because of it. This is not an extreme case, and the tenant was not entitled to end the tenancy because the landlords claimed the carpet cleaning costs.
If follows from these findings that the tenant did not have the right to end the agreement. I accept that the landlords had no real choice but to accept that the tenant was leaving and find a new tenant. That amounts to a surrender of the tenancy by the tenant.
I therefore find that there has been no breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and so her application must be dismissed. The Landlords’ Claims Break Lease Costs
The answer to the landlords claim for break lease costs lies in s44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). It allows the landlords to recover reasonable expenses in respect of termination of the tenancy where termination has occurred under s50(1)(d) of the Act (among other circumstances). S50(1)(d) of the Act provides for termination by surrender (among other things) of the tenancy by the tenant. This was a surrender of the tenancy by the tenant and so the landlords are entitled to recover their reasonable expenses in respect of the termination.
The tenant did not take issue with the amount of the expenses claimed and I find that they are reasonable. I have therefore awarded them. Carpet Cleaning Costs
The dispute over the carpet cleaning costs comes down to whether it was reasonable for the landlords to incur them. I find that it was. The carpet was stained by pet urine which can be difficult to remedy. In some cases, the carpet must be replaced. The landlords received professional advice to clean the carpets before spot cleaning the stains and it was reasonable for them to accept that advice. The tenant had paid for professional carpet cleaning, but the evidence suggests that it was not done adequately. It was in the interests of both parties to treat the urine contamination and the staining effectively, and so it was reasonable for the landlords to get the job done well. I have therefore awarded the landlords the carpet cleaning costs. Bond
It follows that the remaining bond, which has been held at the Bond Centre pending resolution of these applications, must be paid to the landlords. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. She has not been successful and so there must be a good reason to grant it. In my view there is. The parties continue to respect each other and regret that a successful tenancy has been marred by this dispute. There is no significant public interest in identifying the tenant in this decision and it would be against her interests to do. I have therefore granted name suppression. Filing Fee
Because the landlords have been successful, I must award them the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5075928 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
sTenant Break lease costs	$709.55	sTenant Break lease costs
Carpet cleaning	$230.00	Carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenant’s name is suppressed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
[the tenant] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Graham and Annette Eltringham $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $939.55 (6034287-035) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Graham and Annette Eltringham immediately. DescriptionLandlordsTenant Break lease costs$709.55 Carpet cleaning$230.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$966.55 Less bond$939.55 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone.
The tenant claims compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment arising from the early termination of the tenancy and for the landlords unreasonably pursuing a claim for carpet cleaning costs.
The landlords claim break lease expenses and carpet cleaning costs. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term from March 2023 to March 2024. It ended in November 2024 after the tenant served a 28-day termination notice.
The tenancy agreement includes the words, “Pets Permitted: No”.
The tenant’s son lived with her in the premises every other week. The son got a puppy and in September 2024 the landlords became aware that the puppy was on the premises.
The tenant gave evidence, which I accept, that the puppy stayed at the premises for a few days every other week. She said that she had to allow that because her son said that he would not stay with her if he could not have the puppy with him as least for some of the week that he was with her.
The tenant confirmed the situation to the landlords who told her that she would have to exclude the puppy from the premises, or she would have to end the tenancy using the landlords’ standard break lease procedure.
For the reason just stated, the tenant would not exclude the puppy. She was not willing to follow the landlords’ break lease process either. So, on 30 September she gave the landlords notice to end the tenancy on 10 November. I note that a fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated early by such a notice.
The landlords reminded the tenant that the tenancy was for a fixed term and offered the break lease process which the tenant refused. The landlords then turned their attention to finding another tenant.
Fortunately, the landlords were able to find another tenant to move in shortly after the tenant vacated and there is no claim for rent.
Before the tenant vacated, she had the carpets professionally cleaned. On inspection of the premises the landlords found the carpet to be stained on some areas and they wished to have the stains removed.
They arranged for a contractor to test the stains and the test found that the stains were from animal urine. Their contractor recommended that the carpet should be cleaned to remove any remaining urine and any cleaning products before spot cleaning the stains. The landlords accepted that advice.
After some toing and froing, the tenant accepted liability for the spot cleaning but disputed the cost of the general carpet cleaning. Discussion and Decision The Tenant’s Claim Termination
The tenant submitted that the landlords sought to alter the terms of the tenancy by imposing a term that she could not have a pet on the premises under any circumstances. She said that her understanding was that the tenancy agreement prevented her from having a pet living with her in the premises, but it did not prevent her from having a pet on the premises occasionally. She referred to the stress that it would put her under if, for example, a friend wanted to bring a dog with her to the premises during a short visit.
In legal terms, the tenant is claiming that the landlords indicated that they would not adhere to the terms of the tenancy agreement in such a fundamental way that it amounted to a repudiation of the agreement which entitled her to end the tenancy for the landlords’ breach. That is based on a well-established contractual principle sometimes called repudiatory breach.
I cannot accept that the principle applies in this case for the following reasons.
Although the pet term in the agreement is minimalist, I think that reasonable people in the position of the parties would take it to mean simply that pets were not permitted on the premises. Whether that means not permitted under any circumstances is debatable, but not something that I have to decide. Whatever the outcome of that debate might be, I don’t see that it has practical relevance in this case. If a pet was on the premises for a short visit, say with a visiting friend, I doubt whether there would be an issue, and I would not expect the Tribunal to impose any sanction in relation to it.
I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case the pet term applied, and it was a breach of the agreement for the tenant to have the puppy on the premises for a few days every other week. The consequences of the pet being on the premises speak for themselves. A few days every other week is not a fleeting visit; it is having a pet living on the premises, albeit part time.
It follows that the landlords were justified in making clear to the tenant that they would not tolerate the situation.
Even if I had come to a different conclusion on that point, I would not have said that the tenant was justified in ending the agreement. The main reason being that if the tenant believed that she was entitled to have the dog on the premises she could have come to the Tribunal to have that resolved. That is what the Tribunal is there for. It was not necessary or reasonable for the tenant to take the extreme step of ending the agreement.
Whether or not the landlords were entitled to recover the carpet cleaning cost, they were entitled to claim them from the tenant. It is common for tenants to disagree with landlords’ claims for compensation. The Tribunal resolves such disputes every day and it would be an extreme case for the Tribunal to decide that by making a claim, the landlords was in breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and even more extreme for it to find that the tenant was entitled to end the tenancy because of it. This is not an extreme case, and the tenant was not entitled to end the tenancy because the landlords claimed the carpet cleaning costs.
If follows from these findings that the tenant did not have the right to end the agreement. I accept that the landlords had no real choice but to accept that the tenant was leaving and find a new tenant. That amounts to a surrender of the tenancy by the tenant.
I therefore find that there has been no breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and so her application must be dismissed. The Landlords’ Claims Break Lease Costs
The answer to the landlords claim for break lease costs lies in s44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). It allows the landlords to recover reasonable expenses in respect of termination of the tenancy where termination has occurred under s50(1)(d) of the Act (among other circumstances). S50(1)(d) of the Act provides for termination by surrender (among other things) of the tenancy by the tenant. This was a surrender of the tenancy by the tenant and so the landlords are entitled to recover their reasonable expenses in respect of the termination.
The tenant did not take issue with the amount of the expenses claimed and I find that they are reasonable. I have therefore awarded them. Carpet Cleaning Costs
The dispute over the carpet cleaning costs comes down to whether it was reasonable for the landlords to incur them. I find that it was. The carpet was stained by pet urine which can be difficult to remedy. In some cases, the carpet must be replaced. The landlords received professional advice to clean the carpets before spot cleaning the stains and it was reasonable for them to accept that advice. The tenant had paid for professional carpet cleaning, but the evidence suggests that it was not done adequately. It was in the interests of both parties to treat the urine contamination and the staining effectively, and so it was reasonable for the landlords to get the job done well. I have therefore awarded the landlords the carpet cleaning costs. Bond
It follows that the remaining bond, which has been held at the Bond Centre pending resolution of these applications, must be paid to the landlords. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. She has not been successful and so there must be a good reason to grant it. In my view there is. The parties continue to respect each other and regret that a successful tenancy has been marred by this dispute. There is no significant public interest in identifying the tenant in this decision and it would be against her interests to do. I have therefore granted name suppression. Filing Fee
Because the landlords have been successful, I must award them the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075928 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075928 — 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