What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132908 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 5132908?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Chorus Box: $381.77 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $125.71 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $197.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132908?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11572840-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132908 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 5132908?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Chorus Box: $381.77 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $125.71 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $197.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132908?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11572840-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11A Fancourt Street, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132908 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132908 — net $764.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$197.60		Water rates
Chorus box	$381.77		Chorus box
Carpet Cleaning	$224.25		Carpet Cleaning
Blind cleaning	$86.25		Blind cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rent credit		$125.71	Rent credit
Exemplary damages: Landlord entry		$250.00	Landlord entry
Total award	$1,139.87	$375.71
Net award	$764.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$764.16

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Devi Arachchi: $764.16 [The tenant/s]: $2,755.84

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, and compensation.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy commenced on 21 May 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 30 November 2024.
On 27 September 2024 the landlord served a 63 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 24 November 2024. The end date in the notice was an error and should have been 30 November 2024. The landlord did not notice the error until later and an email was sent to the tenant on 12 November 2024 providing the correct end date.
The notice given referred to a periodic tenancy and therefore was not appropriate for this fixed term tenancy. Instead, the notice should have been pursuant to section 60A(2)(c).
As there was an error in the notice, which was relied upon by the tenant, who moved out on the earlier date (24 November 2024), then that is the date when the tenancy ends.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which show that the rent was in credit when the tenant moved out. That amount is awarded to the tenant.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. After considering the evidence I have awarded the landlord’s claim in respect of carpet cleaning and blind cleaning. There was insufficient evidence to support that further cleaning was required inside the premises.
The landlord claimed $450.00 for garden and weeding. The tenant’s evidence is that she returned to the premises after the tenancy ended to carry out removal of the weeds on the pavers. She has provided a photograph showing a lot fewer weeds on the pavers. However, there are still weeds in the garden which the tenant should have removed. I have reduced the landlord’s claim to $250.00 to take account of the extra work carried out by the tenant.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant removed the chorus box from the premises. This belonged to the landlord and is used to provide internet connection to the premises. When the landlord became aware it was missing there was a request sent to the tenant to return it. The tenant failed to return the box and instead chose to bring it to the hearing, almost four months after the tenancy ended.
I have awarded the cost of replacing the chorus box to the landlord. Tenant application
The tenant seeks compensation in relation to a leak, and not being able to use the oven and the washing machine. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord attending at the premises without notice on 2 August 2024.
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the same things that she sought compensation.
The tenant’s evidence is that the leak was present from the beginning of the tenancy until 1 November 2024 when it was fixed. The tenant did not provide any photographs of the leak. While the tenant said there was a leak from the beginning of the tenancy, she did not advise the landlord until July 2024. The tenant said the landlord arranged for a plumber and he attended on 22 July 2024. He told the tenant that he could not repair the issue on that day and the tenant said she contacted the plumber on 31 July 2024, but he did not return to repair the leak.
The landlord evidence is that there were two leaks. The first leak was from the ventilation outlet in the upstairs bathroom which was repaired soon after notification from the tenant. The plumber attending to carry out repairs was unable to do so on the first visit as it was raining so returned a couple of days later to repair the leak. The second leak was the downstairs ventilation outlet which was notified at the inspection held on 21 October 2024 and was fixed on 1 November 2024.
The tenant does not agree that there were two leaks and instead she says that there was only one leak that was not fixed until the month that the tenancy ended.
There is conflicting evidence from the parties. The landlord said that the tenant had not complained further about the leak between July and 21 October 2024 when the routine inspection was held. It was after that inspection that it is agreed that the leak was repaired but one party says it was the downstairs bathroom and the other says it was in the upstairs bathroom.
Due to the conflict in evidence and the lack of evidence from the tenant I am unable to determine the extent of the leak, whether it remained unfixed and what impact if any it had on the tenant. The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the leak is dismissed.
The tenant claims for the oven which she says was not working throughout the tenancy. She said that she advised the landlord at the routine inspection on 21 October 2024. That was five months after the tenancy commenced. The tenant said that the oven was never fixed.
The landlord denies any knowledge of the oven not working and there is no mention of it in the inspection report.
There is no evidence that the oven was not working during the tenancy. Due to a lack of evidence, I am unable to award any compensation or exemplary damages to the tenant for the oven. That claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims in respect of the washing machine which she says was able to be used but made a noise. The tenant said that when the owner visited the premises on 19 July 2024, she told her about the issues with the washing machine. Apparently, the owner advised that it was not a chattel so would not be fixed. The tenant confirmed that it was not fixed but she was still able to use it.
The landlord said that the previous tenant had not complained about the washing machine so thought that it should be fine. The inspection report from the inspection held on 21 October 2024 records, “washing machine will stop at second wash cycle”. This is a different problem to the one reported by the tenant who said that she was able to use the machine.
While the washing machine is not listed in the chattels list in the tenancy agreement it was at the premises presumably for use by the tenant. If it was not intended to be used it should have been removed. If it was intended for use and there at the beginning, there is an argument that it should have been maintained by the landlord.
However, given the conflicting evidence of what was wrong with the washing machine and the tenant’s evidence that she was able to continue to use it meaning there was no loss to the tenant, I am unable to award compensation or exemplary damages. The tenant’s claim in relation to the washing machine is dismissed.
In relation to the landlord attending at the premises without notice I will award exemplary damages rather than compensation.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord entered the premises on 2 August 2024 without notice. 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 said that the owner attended at the premises in the morning of 2 August 2024 with a builder. The owner asked to enter but the tenant refused entry. The tenant was working from home, and she said that she had an important meeting. The tenant was so upset from this incident that she called the Police.
After this incident the tenant asked to end the tenancy early because she was upset with the lack of notice. She thinks that issues at the end of the tenancy are due to her not allowing the landlord to enter.
The owner said that she had permission from the property manager to attend and she was told that the tenant had been given notice. The property manager was unable to provide any evidence that the tenant was given notice of the entry. As there is no evidence of notice being given, I consider that it was not given.
The tenant was clearly upset by this incident. She feels like she has not been able to live peacefully at the premises. She said that this has had an impact on her work although no evidence was produced to support this.
The landlord is aware of the need to provide notice for entry, and it is in the public interest that tenants are given notice as set out in the Act.
While I acknowledge that the tenant was upset about this attempt to enter, the landlord did not actually enter the premises. In the circumstances I consider that a reasonable award of exemplary damages is $250.00.
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 tenant’s name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132908 — net $764.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$197.60		Water rates
Chorus box	$381.77		Chorus box
Carpet Cleaning	$224.25		Carpet Cleaning
Blind cleaning	$86.25		Blind cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rent credit		$125.71	Rent credit
Exemplary damages: Landlord entry		$250.00	Landlord entry
Total award	$1,139.87	$375.71
Net award	$764.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$764.16

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Devi Arachchi: $764.16 [The tenant/s]: $2,755.84

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, and compensation.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages. Background
The tenancy commenced on 21 May 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 30 November 2024.
On 27 September 2024 the landlord served a 63 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 24 November 2024. The end date in the notice was an error and should have been 30 November 2024. The landlord did not notice the error until later and an email was sent to the tenant on 12 November 2024 providing the correct end date.
The notice given referred to a periodic tenancy and therefore was not appropriate for this fixed term tenancy. Instead, the notice should have been pursuant to section 60A(2)(c).
As there was an error in the notice, which was relied upon by the tenant, who moved out on the earlier date (24 November 2024), then that is the date when the tenancy ends.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which show that the rent was in credit when the tenant moved out. That amount is awarded to the tenant.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. After considering the evidence I have awarded the landlord’s claim in respect of carpet cleaning and blind cleaning. There was insufficient evidence to support that further cleaning was required inside the premises.
The landlord claimed $450.00 for garden and weeding. The tenant’s evidence is that she returned to the premises after the tenancy ended to carry out removal of the weeds on the pavers. She has provided a photograph showing a lot fewer weeds on the pavers. However, there are still weeds in the garden which the tenant should have removed. I have reduced the landlord’s claim to $250.00 to take account of the extra work carried out by the tenant.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant removed the chorus box from the premises. This belonged to the landlord and is used to provide internet connection to the premises. When the landlord became aware it was missing there was a request sent to the tenant to return it. The tenant failed to return the box and instead chose to bring it to the hearing, almost four months after the tenancy ended.
I have awarded the cost of replacing the chorus box to the landlord. Tenant application
The tenant seeks compensation in relation to a leak, and not being able to use the oven and the washing machine. The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord attending at the premises without notice on 2 August 2024.
The tenant sought exemplary damages for the same things that she sought compensation.
The tenant’s evidence is that the leak was present from the beginning of the tenancy until 1 November 2024 when it was fixed. The tenant did not provide any photographs of the leak. While the tenant said there was a leak from the beginning of the tenancy, she did not advise the landlord until July 2024. The tenant said the landlord arranged for a plumber and he attended on 22 July 2024. He told the tenant that he could not repair the issue on that day and the tenant said she contacted the plumber on 31 July 2024, but he did not return to repair the leak.
The landlord evidence is that there were two leaks. The first leak was from the ventilation outlet in the upstairs bathroom which was repaired soon after notification from the tenant. The plumber attending to carry out repairs was unable to do so on the first visit as it was raining so returned a couple of days later to repair the leak. The second leak was the downstairs ventilation outlet which was notified at the inspection held on 21 October 2024 and was fixed on 1 November 2024.
The tenant does not agree that there were two leaks and instead she says that there was only one leak that was not fixed until the month that the tenancy ended.
There is conflicting evidence from the parties. The landlord said that the tenant had not complained further about the leak between July and 21 October 2024 when the routine inspection was held. It was after that inspection that it is agreed that the leak was repaired but one party says it was the downstairs bathroom and the other says it was in the upstairs bathroom.
Due to the conflict in evidence and the lack of evidence from the tenant I am unable to determine the extent of the leak, whether it remained unfixed and what impact if any it had on the tenant. The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the leak is dismissed.
The tenant claims for the oven which she says was not working throughout the tenancy. She said that she advised the landlord at the routine inspection on 21 October 2024. That was five months after the tenancy commenced. The tenant said that the oven was never fixed.
The landlord denies any knowledge of the oven not working and there is no mention of it in the inspection report.
There is no evidence that the oven was not working during the tenancy. Due to a lack of evidence, I am unable to award any compensation or exemplary damages to the tenant for the oven. That claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims in respect of the washing machine which she says was able to be used but made a noise. The tenant said that when the owner visited the premises on 19 July 2024, she told her about the issues with the washing machine. Apparently, the owner advised that it was not a chattel so would not be fixed. The tenant confirmed that it was not fixed but she was still able to use it.
The landlord said that the previous tenant had not complained about the washing machine so thought that it should be fine. The inspection report from the inspection held on 21 October 2024 records, “washing machine will stop at second wash cycle”. This is a different problem to the one reported by the tenant who said that she was able to use the machine.
While the washing machine is not listed in the chattels list in the tenancy agreement it was at the premises presumably for use by the tenant. If it was not intended to be used it should have been removed. If it was intended for use and there at the beginning, there is an argument that it should have been maintained by the landlord.
However, given the conflicting evidence of what was wrong with the washing machine and the tenant’s evidence that she was able to continue to use it meaning there was no loss to the tenant, I am unable to award compensation or exemplary damages. The tenant’s claim in relation to the washing machine is dismissed.
In relation to the landlord attending at the premises without notice I will award exemplary damages rather than compensation.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord entered the premises on 2 August 2024 without notice. 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 said that the owner attended at the premises in the morning of 2 August 2024 with a builder. The owner asked to enter but the tenant refused entry. The tenant was working from home, and she said that she had an important meeting. The tenant was so upset from this incident that she called the Police.
After this incident the tenant asked to end the tenancy early because she was upset with the lack of notice. She thinks that issues at the end of the tenancy are due to her not allowing the landlord to enter.
The owner said that she had permission from the property manager to attend and she was told that the tenant had been given notice. The property manager was unable to provide any evidence that the tenant was given notice of the entry. As there is no evidence of notice being given, I consider that it was not given.
The tenant was clearly upset by this incident. She feels like she has not been able to live peacefully at the premises. She said that this has had an impact on her work although no evidence was produced to support this.
The landlord is aware of the need to provide notice for entry, and it is in the public interest that tenants are given notice as set out in the Act.
While I acknowledge that the tenant was upset about this attempt to enter, the landlord did not actually enter the premises. In the circumstances I consider that a reasonable award of exemplary damages is $250.00.
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 tenant’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132908 — Cleanliness at 11A Fancourt Street, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132908 — Cleanliness at 11A Fancourt Street, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions