What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192091 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 5192091?

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 5192091?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868080-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192091 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 5192091?

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 5192091?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868080-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 18 Woodbine Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192091 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Taylor Property Services Limited As Agent For Wong Wai Kuen & Chan Fung Lan $707.81 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Taylor Property Services Limited As Agent For Wong Wai Kuen & Chan Fung Lan: $707.81 [The tenant/s]: $2,652.19

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by the property manager. The definition of landlord under the RTA includes the owner and any agent appointed to act on their behalf.
The landlord has applied for compensation, break lease fees for costs associated with the landlord agreeing to the early end of the fixed term tenancy, a refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants do not agree they should pay all of these costs.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy commenced on 13/4/2024 and was for a fixed term ending on 14/4/2025.
The tenants requested an early end to the fixed term as two of them had purchased a property. Both assignment and an early end to the fixed term were considered as options.
The landlord agreed to the fixed term of the tenancy ending early, provided the tenants paid the costs of finding a new tenant and paid the rent until a new tenancy commenced.
The property manager found new tenants, with that new fixed term tenancy, also for one year commencing on 22/2/2025.
The tenants have paid the weekly rent of $840, until 21/2/2025. They agreed that they would return the keys on 17/2 and the tenancy (and rent liability) would end then, if the property was returned in a condition where it could be relet, if additional work was needed the tenants would pay the rent until 21/2.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of water rates owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agree that the water rates can be deducted from their bond. They have not made any claim for a refund of rent paid until 21/2, but do not consider the landlord should be awarded all of the additional rent, the full costs of reletting the property and all of the cleaning and gardening costs required to immediately relet the property.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Carpet cleaning?

The tenants agree that the carpets were stained during the tenancy particularly in one bedroom, and the professional carpet cleaning costs were required to remove stains and restore the carpets to a reasonable condition.
That order is made as the claim is proven by the photographs and the invoice. The amount awarded is also considered reasonable for carpet cleaning and stain removal.

Lawns and gardens?

The landlord claims $448 for a contractor to attend for three and a half hours to mow the lawns, weed all gardens (front and back) and trim the hedges at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agree that the lawns were overgrown and required mowing and some gardening/section work was also required at the end of the tenancy to ensure they had fulfilled their contractual obligation to ensure the lawns and gardens were maintained.
They explained that continual wet weather in the period before they vacated meant they were unable to have this work done by the time they left on 16/2. They said the contractor they had used during the tenancy, could not attend to had charged $150 to mow the lawns, tidy the edges and remove the waste.
I have awarded $350 as reasonable compensation, to allow for the lawn mowing and edges and some additional garden work at the end of the tenancy.
A landlord has a duty to mitigate loss, and the hourly rate charged by the contractor engaged, appears high. In addition, and within reason, trimming hedges and larger trees and plants, is more maintenance type gardening work that a reasonable landlord will anticipate attending to or paying for from time to time and especially between tenancies.

Cleaning?

The landlord claimed $408.25 for cleaning. The landlord has also paid for some additional cleaning, totalling $189.75, as additional cleaning required to restore the property to a condition where it could be relet.
I have allowed the cleaning cost. I am satisfied that the cleaning was required to return the property to the required standard.
A tenant must leave a property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This does not mean they are required to remove every mark from every surface. The photographs and the cleaners’ explanation of the invoice on charged to the tenants, confirms reasonably extensive additional cleaning was required to meet this standard.
The photographs provided persuade me that the cleaning cost has been fairly split, having regard to the applicable standards.
The amounts ordered are therefore considered reasonable having regard to all of these relevant factors.

Break lease costs?

I have dismissed the landlords claim for $1,396.49 compensation, as the property manager’s costs associated with finding new tenants because of the tenants’ request to end the fixed term early.
The parties discussed assignment but ultimately agreed that the fixed term tenancy would end and not be assigned. An ‘assignment’ is the transfer of an existing tenancy agreement from departing tenant(s) to new tenant(s). This includes any conditions agreed to in the tenancy agreement by the landlord and existing tenants.
An assignment would mean that new tenants took over the tenancy with the same rent amount, same conditions, and same expiry date for the fixed-term tenancy. The costs claimed would then be considered as costs the landlord incurred for the property manager to attend to the assignment.
Instead as the landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early the costs claimed are to find replacement tenants (and in so doing release the existing tenants from the obligation to pay rent for a further 7-8 weeks.)
The property manager said that had the fixed term ended in accordance with the contract date, the owners would have been charged a letting fee of $1,932 (2 weeks rent plus GST) as the standard contractual costs (between property manager and owner) associated with the reletting of the property. The owner has not been charged this letting fee, as the costs of finding the new tenants, will be covered by the break lease charges claimed in this application.
The property manager also explained that had the fixed term run its course, she would then have advertised it for rent, around mid-March, in the hope that a new tenant would be found quickly and therefore the expense to the owner of a period of time with no rent between tenancies, would be minimised. The owner would have been required to pay $1,932 as a letting fee for her to attend to this.
The landlord confirmed that the new tenancy that started from 22/2 was for a further one-year term, at the same rent as this tenancy.
The landlord’s earlier correspondence to the tenants in December 2024 had explained that achieving the same rent, may be a difficult result to achieve in a market that was “low, tough and dreadfully slow” is noted as is the evidence at the hearing that marketing the property in the buoyant mid-January period was an optimum time to achieve the goal of reletting the property quickly and at the same rent. I accept the property manager’s evidence that a considerable amount of time and effort was required to achieve this result.
The difficulty with allowing the break lease costs claimed, would be that to do that would be to return the landlord (and as noted the definition of landlord includes owner) to a better position than they would have been in had the tenants not asked for the break/early release from the fixed term.
In considering this issue it is pivotal, that there was only 7 weeks of the tenancy left to run by the time the new tenancy began.
Even without the early end of the fixed term, the owner would therefore have been required to pay the property manager a letting fee of $1,932, very shortly after 21/2. That letting fee would then not be recoverable from any tenant by virtue of s17A which states that no letting agent or other person may require a tenant to pay a letting fee.
S17A (2) does not prevent a landlord recovering reasonable expenses on consenting to the tenant’s parting with possession of the premises. The only reason for not awarding the break lease costs claimed is therefore that to do so would result in a “windfall” for the landlord by virtue of the landlord not having to pay any of the higher letting fee for costs of finding and commencing the new tenancy.
Had the tenancy run its course, as well as the letting fee, the owner would also have likely had the additional loss of some down time, with no rent, between tenancies.
Under S.85(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is directed to determine disputes according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
As the section has been interpreted both general principles of law and substantial merits and justice must be considered.
It is the principle of betterment that prevails here. The landlord (and as noted the definition includes owner) should not be returned to a better position than they would be in had the tenants not breached their obligation, which under the fixed term was to pay rent until 14 April 2025.
To allow the break lease costs claimed would be to do just this and I decline to do so.
Dismissing the claim for costs does not mean that the Tribunal is unsympathetic to the landlord’s position that there was no real substance to the tenants claim that an unexpected change in their circumstances had occurred, when they asked for the early release from the fixed term. Had the Tribunal been asked to adjudicate that issue the answer would have endorsed the landlord’s view that this purchase would be a planned course of actions and not unforeseen or unexpected. The Tribunal does not quibble either with the breakdown and reasonableness of the property manager’s costs and disbursements that are claimed.
However the reality is, that as things have transpired agreeing to the request to the early end of the fixed term has benefited the owner/landlord in the sense of not now being required to pay a higher letting fee for costs associated with finding new tenants for the tenancy. The new tenancy now runs until February 2026, and in addition the owner has not had any loss of rent whatsoever, between tenancies.
Based on the evidence available the landlord has not therefore suffered an out- of-pocket loss as a result of the tenant’s breach.
I am aware that this decision may mean that the break lease costs are now on charged to the owner as a letting fee associated with the commencement of the new tenancy from 22/2. That is a matter between owner and agent that is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Because Taylor Property Services Limited As Agent For Wong Wai Kuen & Chan Fung Lan has partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants’ request for name suppression is approved.
The tenant’s bond has more than covered the amount they owe, and as the outcome confirms, they were entitled to dispute some of the claims made.
There is therefore little public interest in publishing their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192091 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Woodbine Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192091 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 18 Woodbine Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Carpet cleaning?

Lawns and gardens?

Cleaning?

Break lease costs?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Carpet cleaning?

Lawns and gardens?

Cleaning?

Break lease costs?