What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5137368?

The tribunal order states: Brent Ross Weir to pay Metro Property Management Limited - Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 5137368?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Heat pump servicing ch…: $140.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137368?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11590462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5137368?

The tribunal order states: Brent Ross Weir to pay Metro Property Management Limited - Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 5137368?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Heat pump servicing ch…: $140.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137368?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11590462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 134 Somerfield Street, Somerfield, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5137368 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137368 — net $320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$460.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Heat pump servicing charges		$140.00	Heat pump servicing charges
Total award	$460.00	$140.00
Net award	$320.00
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$320.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137368 — net $320.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$460.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Heat pump servicing charges		$140.00	Heat pump servicing charges
Total award	$460.00	$140.00
Net award	$320.00
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$320.00

Order

Brent Ross Weir to pay Metro Property Management Limited - Ray White $320.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (3469817-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Metro Property Management Limited - Ray White: $320.00 Brent Ross Weir: $1120.00
Brent Ross Weir’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Goulding, Mr Sharp and Ms White attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord provided emails, photographs, and an invoice to support its claim for cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began in June 2021 and ended in late 2024. The tenant gave evidence that he had spent many days cleaning the premises prior to moving out.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had cleaned the property but considered that the standard fell below reasonably clean and tidy in places.
The landlord had emailed the tenant with a list of work to be completed to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state. The landlord gave the tenant an opportunity to complete the cleaning himself or to have the costs taken from his bond.
The tenant replied that the landlord should, “go ahead with the repair.”
The tenant said during the hearing that he did acknowledge that there may be some additional cleaning remaining, but he did not accept that it would come to the $690.00 claimed by the landlord. The tenant thought the cost would be more in the vicinity of $100 to $200.
The landlord said that the cleaning included the oven (which was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy) and the interior of the windows which it said together would have cost more than $200 to have cleaned.
The invoice also included: shower glass, basin and taps in bathroom; toilet; cobwebs and skirting throughout; kitchen sink, tap and walls; some wardrobes and shelving and some internal doors.
The landlord considered the amount of the invoice an appropriate cost for the work needed to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenant gave evidence that the house was not particularly clean when the tenancy began and that he spent many hours cleaning various items (for example the kitchen blind).
The landlord noted that the tenant had not brought this to the landlord’s attention at the beginning of the tenancy though he had been invited to do so as per the landlord’s usual process. He had viewed, signed and submitted the ingoing condition report a few days after the tenancy commenced.
The tenant’s mother (who had inspected the property with him prior to the tenancy commencing) wrote a letter in support of the tenant saying that said that the property was not in a good state at the beginning of the tenancy, and this was especially the case with the oven (which was mentioned to the landlord and was then replaced before the tenancy began). Mrs Weir also confirmed the tenant’s evidence that he had spent some time (apparently 20 hours) cleaning the kitchen blind at the beginning of the tenancy.
The ingoing inspection report notes some areas of the kitchen as “dirty” (including the drain) but does not specifically refer to the blind. The photographs of the blind show that it was not clean at the beginning and support the tenant’s claim to have spent some time cleaning it at the commencement of the tenancy.
Other areas of the kitchen (light fittings and kitchen drain) were described as “dirty” on the ingoing report and the range hood cleanliness being described as “reasonable” rather than “clean”.
I have reduced the amount ordered from the $600 plus GST claimed to $400 plus GST ($460.00).
I consider that whilst some additional cleaning was definitely required as clearly shown in the exit photographs (skirtings, oven and windows for example), the property was not clean in all respects at the beginning of the tenancy and in some areas (the kitchen drain for example) the property was cleaner at the end than at the beginning of the tenancy. I have reduced the amount ordered accordingly.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenant’s claims
The tenant made a variety of claims in his application and at the hearing relating to alleged breaches of the Act on the part of the landlord.
These can be summarised as Healthy Homes breaches, failures to maintain the property in a timely way, failure to give appropriate notice of landlord visits, and breaches of the tenants right to make use of the full property.
The tenant also alleged that the property was an illegal tenancy but provided no evidence to support that allegation and that claim is therefore dismissed.
The tenant claimed that he should be entitled to compensation amounting to the full rent for much of the term of the tenancy due to being unable to enjoy the property fully as a consequence of the alleged landlord breaches ($50,000).
The tenant also claimed exemplary damages for unlawful acts on the part of the landlord.
The property is an older style brick house with wooden single glazed joinery. It is the type of house that is likely to be cold in winter particularly in rooms on the south side of the house.
The property looks to be in reasonable repair and redecoration for a house of its style and age.
The tenant lived at the property for three and a half years.
The tenant claimed that the property was not Healthy Homes compliant but provided no evidence to support that claim. The landlord provided a copy of the Healthy Homes assessment from 2021 and the invoices to show that the two (minor) areas of non-compliance were addressed.
The tenant considered that there should have been enough space to install insulation under the floor, but the assessment confirms that the exemption applies as there is insufficient space to install an underfloor moisture barrier.
The tenant referred to gaps in the building especially referring to a large gap under the kitchen sink where pipes went through the brickwork to the exterior.
The landlord denied that such a gap existed and pointed to the exterior photographs which confirm that there is no pipework coming through the bricks outside the kitchen.
The landlord has an obligation to comply with the Healthy Homes standards in relation to supplying compliant heating (which this landlord did). Part of that obligation is to ensure that the heating continues to be compliant (for example, by regular cleaning and servicing).
The heat pump is described as “clean to the exterior and interior” at the beginning of the tenancy, but it clearly became a problem for the tenant during the tenancy and was mentioned in an inspection report where the inspector tried to help the tenant clean it but suggested that it needed further attention.
Once this issue was brought to light, the owner arranged for someone to collect and clean the filters.
The tenant thought there was still an issue as he the arranged for a service to be completed on the system (less than a month later) and this found that there were issues with both the indoor and outdoor coils being blocked and the indoor and outdoor drains also blocked. The service cost $140 and the tenant provided an invoice to confirm this cost.
There was no evidence provided that the tenant had asked the landlord to complete this service at any stage or told the landlord that he intended to have the heat pump serviced prior to getting the work done.
The owner later told the tenant that she was planning to arrange a service of the heat pump and he advised that he had already had one completed and sent through the report (but apparently not the invoice). There is no evidence that the tenant asked for payment although he said in the hearing that he had asked to be reimbursed.
In the circumstances, although I have no evidence that the tenant asked to be reimbursed, I do consider that it is the landlord’s responsibility to pay for heat pump servicing especially when its efficiency has been questioned by the tenant and the report shows that work needed to be completed on the appliance. I consider that the landlord should have reimbursed the tenant for this at the time.
I have ordered that the landlord reimburse the tenant for this cost which amounted to $140.00.
The amount ordered is proved.
Although the tenant gave evidence that he had been cold in the property and had been ill as a consequence of the moisture and dampness in the home due to landlord breaches of the Act, limited evidence was provided to support this.
The tenant supplied a letter from and a friend who had “25 years’ experience in housing”. The friend’s letter confirmed that the tenant had been sleeping in the living room due to the bedrooms being too cold to sleep in.
The tenant also provided a letter from his medical practice to say that he had been treated in July 2024 for a lower respiratory tract infection requiring multiple reviews and three courses of anti-biotics.
The inspection reports provided show that the tenant kept the property tidy and well ventilated. There was no indication in any reports that the tenant was sleeping anywhere other than the bedroom. The tenant agreed that he returned the bed to the bedroom for inspections as he wanted to present it to the best of his ability for the landlord.
Although I accept that the property may well have been cold and that the tenant suffered ill health which may have been caused by living in a cold home over winter months, I cannot find that this was caused by any landlord breach.
The tenant gave evidence that he had told the landlord that he was sleeping in the living room over winter but there is no evidence in any inspection reports to confirm this, and, indeed, the tenant’s own evidence indicated that he removed any sign of this prior to inspections.
In any case, the landlord has no obligation to provide heating in the bedrooms and the heating provided in the living space has to be sufficient to heat that space only.
If the tenant preferred not to use the bedroom at times during the tenancy, this is not due to any breach of the Act on the landlord’s part.
It is sadly the case that a number of tenants (and property owners) cannot afford to heat their homes well enough over the winter. However, unless the tenant can point to a relevant breach of the Act, this is not the responsibility of a landlord.
The tenant’s claims in relation to mould and moisture in the property are likely related to the cold issue. The property was always noted as being well ventilated in inspection reports but if it was unheated in areas over winter it is likely that dampness and mould may be a result.
It can be difficult to determine whether mould and dampness in a property is caused by a defect in the property itself or the manner in which the tenant lives in the property. This is especially so in older homes where the age and style of the property can contribute to being more difficult to keep warm. This is the nature of the house rather than a defect that can be remedied by the landlord.
This property is healthy homes compliant and there is no evidence to suggest that any defect in the property made it mouldy or damp.
There is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that this is an issue for which the landlord should be responsible.
Part of the tenant’s evidence for this included photographs of flaky and discoloured window joinery. The damage looks to be caused by condensation running down windows and damaging the sills over a number of years.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had not attended to repairs of the windows in a timely way.
The bedroom window frames are described in the ingoing report as, “clean but worn and stained” for the master bedroom and “clean but timber is water stained” in the second bedroom.
The windows look to be varnished timber and the photographs confirm the description above.
The windows do seem to have deteriorated further in the exit photographs.
The landlord provided copies of a text exchange between the owner and the tenant in relation to repairs to the windows in February 2023. The owner had said that she was planning to get the windows painted and asked if the tenant would rather wait another year.
The tenant responded, “Leave it for another year, as long as you know about it is fine, it’s just a look thing thanks brent.”
The tenant denied sending that text but in the absence of any other evidence in relation to the windowsills, I find that they were discoloured at the beginning of the tenancy and that the landlord offered to make repairs to them and this offer was declined by the tenant.
The tenant made claims that other work on the property was not completed in a timely way. This included cleaning or replacing damaged curtains.
The curtain linings look to be in reasonable condition at the beginning of the tenancy with some minor mildew and water staining. They are described as such in the written report. They look to be in a similar condition in the exit photographs.
The tenant said he requested that they be cleaned or replaced at an inspection later in the tenancy. No cleaning or replacement was completed. There is no record of this request in the April 2024 or October 2024 inspection report.
The tenant referred to a number of other matters that he said were not attended to during the tenancy (such as repairs to a clothes line, drainage issues, failure to clean outside windows after water blasting, damaged landlord chattels and failed draught stopping) but there was no evidence supplied in relation to these other matters.
The landlord gave evidence that all maintenance that had been reported by the tenant had been attended to in a timely way. The landlord representatives said they had no knowledge of many of the issues raised by the tenant until the Tribunal application was made.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord’s agent had made an illegal entry. This related to a landlord employee bringing a contractor on to the property. The tenant acknowledged that he had been told that the employee was coming to obtain quotes for certain work, but he had another person with him who was not introduced to the tenant and who the tenant did not know. The tenant said that they had walked throughout the house.
The landlord accepted that the employee had attended the property with a tradesperson for the purposes of obtaining a quote for work towards the end of the tenancy. He said that obtaining a quote would always involve bringing a tradesperson to the property and he thought that he had introduced the tradesperson to the tenant.
The tenant also claimed that the property owner had bene into the property without consent. No evidence was supplied to support this allegation and the landlord representatives gave evidence that the owner did not hold a key for the property at the relevant time.
The tenant is required to establish his claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord committed any breaches of the Act in relation to any of the above matters or any other matter that the tenant mentioned during the hearing.
The tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches are dismissed.
It is a shame that a relatively long and generally friendly tenancy has ended in a negative way.
The tenant acknowledged that he was struggling to find an affordable property at the time this tenancy commenced and that the (then) property manager had helped him into this tenancy for which he expressed gratitude.
The owner kept the rent stable during the tenancy with only one rent increase (of $20.00) over the entire tenancy.
The tenant was clearly very well thought of by the landlord as is evidenced by the many positive inspection reports provided to the Tribunal.
It is clear that the property has not been entirely suitable for this tenant, and he is now in accommodation better suited to his needs.
As neither party has been entirely successful, filing fees fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137368 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 134 Somerfield Street, Somerfield, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137368 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 134 Somerfield Street, Somerfield, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions