What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132071 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5132071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132071?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11796122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132071 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5132071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132071?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11796122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Whitefield Street, Kaiapoi 7630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132071 — Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,796.43 (5580183-002) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
This tenancy started in May 2023 and ended in January 2025.
The landlords have owned the premises since 1985 and they lived in it until 2020. Since the tenancy ended, they have moved back into it.
During the time that the premises were rented, the landlord left their belongings in the garage and a trailer and a car in the shed.
The property manager at the start of the tenancy was not the property manager when it ended. That has created some evidential problems for the landlords in relation to their application.
There was a claim for rent arrears. That was resolved at mediation and the arrears have been paid from the bond. $1,796.43 bond remains at the Bond Centre. The Landlords’ Claims Wall Damage
The landlords claim that the tenant damaged a wall in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant denies that and says that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.
The landlords did not produce a photograph showing the wall at the start of the tenancy. It did produce the ingoing inspection report signed by both parties that does not record the wall damage.
The landlords also produced photographs showing the wall taken during the tenancy at routine inspections.
The first photograph taken in August 2023 does not show the damaged part of the wall.
The other two photographs taken in November 2023 and May 2024 show the damage.
The tenant says that he signed the ingoing report without checking it, trusting that the agent recorded all damage.
He also pointed out that he had repaired damage in the premises that he had caused. He is a painter and decorator. One area of damage was close to the wall damage. He says that if he had damaged the wall, he would have repaired it as he had done for the other damage.
The deciding factor for me is that the damage was plainly there early in the tenancy and yet there is no evidence that the landlords brought it up with the tenant let alone asked him to repair it. That suggests that the agent at the time did not hold him liable for it.
I find that it is likely that the damage predated the tenancy and therefore the claim is dismissed. Carpet Cleaning
The landlords claim the cost of professional carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The issue is whether the evidence proves that the carpet needed professional cleaning to bring it to a reasonably clean condition. That is what the Act requires and nothing in the tenancy agreement alters that.
The landlords said that there was cat hair around the edges of the carpet, and that only professional cleaning could remove that, and that hair was embedded in the carpet.
The landlord’s photographs do not show the cat hair. The carpets look reasonably clean in them.
The tenant said that he had the cat for only about a month. There is good evidence that it had gone by April 2024.
Based on this evidence I am not satisfied that the carpets needed professional cleaning by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
One of the owners is allergic to cats and they have moved back into the premises. That appears to be the reason for the professional cleaning. The landlord’s allergies are not relevant to the statutory cleaning standard. Carpet Damage
The landlords claim the insurance excess after they incurred the cost of replacing the carpet in the lounge/dining area. They say the carpet was stained during the tenancy and had to be replaced for that reason.
The ingoing report refers to brown stains in the area. The tenant said that the stain emerged after he had the carpet professionally cleaned.
The landlord’s ingoing photographs are not good quality but as far as I can tell from them, there is a discoloured area in the living/dining area where the stain is shown in the outgoing photographs. I find therefore that the stain was present at the start of the tenancy, and I therefore dismiss this claim. Garden Ornament
The was a “garden ornament” near the front door of the premises and the landlord claims that it was missing at the end of the tenancy. It claims $100 for its loss. It was a string of old Bakelite insulating blocks that the landlords picked up from the dump.
The premises are open to the road, and anyone could have taken the “ornament”. I accept that the tenant did not remove it. The claim is therefore dismissed. Tenant’s Claims Wood Burner
The tenant claims that the wood burner in the premises was not compliant. He produced no hard evidence of that and so the claim is dismissed. The Garage, Shed and Landlords’ Goods
There is a garage, shed and carport on the premises. The garage was locked and contained the landlords’ goods.
The shed had the landlord’s trailer in it and, for some of the time of the tenancy, a car belonging to them.
The tenants had the use of the carport and part of the shed after the car was removed.
The tenancy agreement makes no mention of the garage or the shed being excluded from the tenancy.
The landlords produced the advertisement for the rental. It states that the garage is not included. The tenant said that he did not read that.
The landlords said that it was made clear to the tenant before signing the tenancy agreement that the garage and shed were not available for his use. The tenant denied that.
I am struck by the fact that the tenant did not raise any issue concerning the garage or shed during the tenancy. That suggests that he was aware they were not part of the tenancy. I note that the landlords came to and from the shed during the tenancy apparently without objection from the tenant, except as to timing.
I am also not inclined to make an award in favour of a tenant when the tenant has not raised any objection during the tenancy or taken any steps to assert a right which they later claim to have had. This is not a case where the tenant could be unaware of the right (if it exists). He could not use the shed or the garage and if he thought he was entitled to use them the obvious thing to do was to say so.
I therefore dismiss this claim. Unlawful Entry/Interference with Quiet Enjoyment.
One of the landlords came and went from the premises when he accessed the shed and garage. On most occasions the tenant received notice of these visits and consented to them. The tenant says that there were three occasions when the landlord entered without permission.
The landlord accepted that he came to the premises on a Monday when notice had been given and accepted for the Tuesday. The tenant was not at home at the time. The landlord said that afterwards the tenant said that he did not have a problem with it.
On the other two occasions the tenant said that he did not receive notice or give permission. On one of those occasions the landlord later reported that there was a blocked drain which he said suggests that the landlord took the opportunity to conduct an unlawful inspection.
Regarding the drain, the landlords said that he noticed flooding and went to investigate.
I note that the landlord at no time entered the house unlawfully. Entering the land other than the house unlawfully is not an unlawful act and so all that the Tribunal can consider is awarding compensation.
The tenant has not suffered any financial loss and so that leaves general compensation for upset. I am not minded to award compensation because the tenant was content for the landlords to come onto the land to access the shed and garage with notice. When the landlords entered without notice, the tenant was concerned but does not appear to have been upset. He certainly did not make any formal complaint at the time. My impression is that this claim has been raised now as a counter to the landlords’ claims.
I therefore dismiss the claim. Result
All claims are dismissed, and the remaining bond will be paid to the tenant.

Order

The parties’ claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,796.43 (5580183-002) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
This tenancy started in May 2023 and ended in January 2025.
The landlords have owned the premises since 1985 and they lived in it until 2020. Since the tenancy ended, they have moved back into it.
During the time that the premises were rented, the landlord left their belongings in the garage and a trailer and a car in the shed.
The property manager at the start of the tenancy was not the property manager when it ended. That has created some evidential problems for the landlords in relation to their application.
There was a claim for rent arrears. That was resolved at mediation and the arrears have been paid from the bond. $1,796.43 bond remains at the Bond Centre. The Landlords’ Claims Wall Damage
The landlords claim that the tenant damaged a wall in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant denies that and says that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.
The landlords did not produce a photograph showing the wall at the start of the tenancy. It did produce the ingoing inspection report signed by both parties that does not record the wall damage.
The landlords also produced photographs showing the wall taken during the tenancy at routine inspections.
The first photograph taken in August 2023 does not show the damaged part of the wall.
The other two photographs taken in November 2023 and May 2024 show the damage.
The tenant says that he signed the ingoing report without checking it, trusting that the agent recorded all damage.
He also pointed out that he had repaired damage in the premises that he had caused. He is a painter and decorator. One area of damage was close to the wall damage. He says that if he had damaged the wall, he would have repaired it as he had done for the other damage.
The deciding factor for me is that the damage was plainly there early in the tenancy and yet there is no evidence that the landlords brought it up with the tenant let alone asked him to repair it. That suggests that the agent at the time did not hold him liable for it.
I find that it is likely that the damage predated the tenancy and therefore the claim is dismissed. Carpet Cleaning
The landlords claim the cost of professional carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The issue is whether the evidence proves that the carpet needed professional cleaning to bring it to a reasonably clean condition. That is what the Act requires and nothing in the tenancy agreement alters that.
The landlords said that there was cat hair around the edges of the carpet, and that only professional cleaning could remove that, and that hair was embedded in the carpet.
The landlord’s photographs do not show the cat hair. The carpets look reasonably clean in them.
The tenant said that he had the cat for only about a month. There is good evidence that it had gone by April 2024.
Based on this evidence I am not satisfied that the carpets needed professional cleaning by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
One of the owners is allergic to cats and they have moved back into the premises. That appears to be the reason for the professional cleaning. The landlord’s allergies are not relevant to the statutory cleaning standard. Carpet Damage
The landlords claim the insurance excess after they incurred the cost of replacing the carpet in the lounge/dining area. They say the carpet was stained during the tenancy and had to be replaced for that reason.
The ingoing report refers to brown stains in the area. The tenant said that the stain emerged after he had the carpet professionally cleaned.
The landlord’s ingoing photographs are not good quality but as far as I can tell from them, there is a discoloured area in the living/dining area where the stain is shown in the outgoing photographs. I find therefore that the stain was present at the start of the tenancy, and I therefore dismiss this claim. Garden Ornament
The was a “garden ornament” near the front door of the premises and the landlord claims that it was missing at the end of the tenancy. It claims $100 for its loss. It was a string of old Bakelite insulating blocks that the landlords picked up from the dump.
The premises are open to the road, and anyone could have taken the “ornament”. I accept that the tenant did not remove it. The claim is therefore dismissed. Tenant’s Claims Wood Burner
The tenant claims that the wood burner in the premises was not compliant. He produced no hard evidence of that and so the claim is dismissed. The Garage, Shed and Landlords’ Goods
There is a garage, shed and carport on the premises. The garage was locked and contained the landlords’ goods.
The shed had the landlord’s trailer in it and, for some of the time of the tenancy, a car belonging to them.
The tenants had the use of the carport and part of the shed after the car was removed.
The tenancy agreement makes no mention of the garage or the shed being excluded from the tenancy.
The landlords produced the advertisement for the rental. It states that the garage is not included. The tenant said that he did not read that.
The landlords said that it was made clear to the tenant before signing the tenancy agreement that the garage and shed were not available for his use. The tenant denied that.
I am struck by the fact that the tenant did not raise any issue concerning the garage or shed during the tenancy. That suggests that he was aware they were not part of the tenancy. I note that the landlords came to and from the shed during the tenancy apparently without objection from the tenant, except as to timing.
I am also not inclined to make an award in favour of a tenant when the tenant has not raised any objection during the tenancy or taken any steps to assert a right which they later claim to have had. This is not a case where the tenant could be unaware of the right (if it exists). He could not use the shed or the garage and if he thought he was entitled to use them the obvious thing to do was to say so.
I therefore dismiss this claim. Unlawful Entry/Interference with Quiet Enjoyment.
One of the landlords came and went from the premises when he accessed the shed and garage. On most occasions the tenant received notice of these visits and consented to them. The tenant says that there were three occasions when the landlord entered without permission.
The landlord accepted that he came to the premises on a Monday when notice had been given and accepted for the Tuesday. The tenant was not at home at the time. The landlord said that afterwards the tenant said that he did not have a problem with it.
On the other two occasions the tenant said that he did not receive notice or give permission. On one of those occasions the landlord later reported that there was a blocked drain which he said suggests that the landlord took the opportunity to conduct an unlawful inspection.
Regarding the drain, the landlords said that he noticed flooding and went to investigate.
I note that the landlord at no time entered the house unlawfully. Entering the land other than the house unlawfully is not an unlawful act and so all that the Tribunal can consider is awarding compensation.
The tenant has not suffered any financial loss and so that leaves general compensation for upset. I am not minded to award compensation because the tenant was content for the landlords to come onto the land to access the shed and garage with notice. When the landlords entered without notice, the tenant was concerned but does not appear to have been upset. He certainly did not make any formal complaint at the time. My impression is that this claim has been raised now as a counter to the landlords’ claims.
I therefore dismiss the claim. Result
All claims are dismissed, and the remaining bond will be paid to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132071 — Rent arrears at 62 Whitefield Street, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132071 — Rent arrears at 62 Whitefield Street, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions