What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218131 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal order suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5218131?

Remove Green Waste: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Back Door Key: $82.98 awarded to landlord; Shower Door: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218131?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12042992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218131 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal order suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5218131?

Remove Green Waste: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Back Door Key: $82.98 awarded to landlord; Shower Door: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218131?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12042992-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218131 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218131 — net $322.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$80.00	Rent arrears
Shower door	$60.00	Shower door
Remove green waste	$100.00	Remove green waste
Replace back door key	$82.98	Replace back door key
Net award	$322.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$322.98

Order

The Tribunal order suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $322.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to distribute the bond of $1500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) [Bond number suppressed] [The tenant/s] - $1,177.02 [The landlord/s] -$ 322.98

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The first application (5218131) was filed by the tenants. It seeks repayment of their bond.
The landlord filed a later application (5263959) seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In substance, the proceedings involve claims by the landlord against the tenants’ bond and the hearing proceeded on that basis.

How much is owed for rent?

There is agreement that the tenants should pay the landlord one additional day’s rent.

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.
Because it will feature in this order, I note at the outset s.49 RTA which requires that, “ Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The tenants had the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy. They separately arranged for commercial carpet cleaning.
Clearly that is a responsible approach to ensuring their end of tenancy obligations were met. The landlord says that they were very good tenants.
The landlord says that the carpets were nevertheless still dirty and required further cleaning which she paid for. She says that the shower door was coated with residues that it took her several hours and “shower witch” treatment to remove. Compensation is sought.
The photographs provided by the landlord show that the shower door was not left in the condition it was provided in or that the landlord was able to return it to by the treatment she applied.
In that respect I find that the tenants did not meet their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
No opportunity was given to the tenants to do the work themselves but I do not think it likely that they would have been able to have their cleaners do that work within the scope of their general cleaning brief or that the tenants would have been able to do it themselves without the same time and effort put in by the landlord. That being so, the tenants were not disadvantaged by the landlord not giving them an opportunity to mitigate the situation themselves. I find the landlord’s compensation claim proved and reasonable.
As regards the carpet, had the landlord given the tenants the opportunity, they would have been able to have their carpet cleaner assess the landlord’s claim that it had not properly cleaned the carpets and redo them if required. The tenants have been disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to do that, which may have enabled them to rectify any breach without cost. That having been the effect of the landlord’s breach of her obligations under s.49, the landlord’s claim is declined.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the cost of repairing a towel rail that had come off the wall. The tenants say it was not subjected to any unusual treatment and was not secured to a stud but only to the gib board.
The evidence does not show any careless or negligent act or omission by the tenants that led to the towel rail becoming dislodged. The photos tend to support the tenants’ evidence about how it was secured. That claim is declined.
The tenants do not dispute the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing a back door key, as proved by the receipt provided.
The landlord claims compensation of $250.00 for the cost of removing green waste which she says resulted from the tenants’ failure to keep the grounds reasonably clean and tidy.
Grounds are a shared responsibility. The tenants’ obligation is to keep them reasonably clean and tidy. More “structural” or specialised grounds work is for the landlord. It is put this way on the tenancy Services website: “Tenants must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. This includes mowing the lawns and weeding the gardens. Tenants won't have to do this if the landlord has agreed to do this in the tenancy agreement. If a tenant wants to remove or prune a tree, shrub or hedge, they should get the landlord’s written consent first. If they do this, the tenant is then responsible for removing the cuttings. Landlords are usually responsible for pruning and maintaining trees, shrubs and hedges. If they are, they would normally remove the cuttings too. This minimises the risk of damage. Some trees and shrubs may need special care, skill or knowledge to maintain them. They could also be protected species, or of local/historical interest and can’t be removed.”
The tenants acknowledge having little gardening expertise. They mowed the lawns and did obvious weeding but were not skilled at knowing what plants were wanted and what ought to be removed.
The landlord says that the large quantity of green waste that needed to be removed was because the tenants allowed weeds to grow very large. She however did not do much of the grounds maintenance that was her responsibility and did not conduct regular inspections, through which she could have let the tenants know what her expectations were in terms of removal of unwanted growth.
I find it more likely than not that the quantity of green waste that needed to be removed was contributed to by the tenants not fully meeting their obligation to keep those parts of the grounds under better control. The landlord’s oversights were a major contributing factor.
As noted, grounds maintenance is a shared responsibility. I find that the cost of removing the green waste, as proved by the invoice provided, should also be shared. I find the appropriate proportions to be, tenants - $100.00/ landlord - $150.00.
No order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218131 — net $322.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$80.00	Rent arrears
Shower door	$60.00	Shower door
Remove green waste	$100.00	Remove green waste
Replace back door key	$82.98	Replace back door key
Net award	$322.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$322.98

Order

The Tribunal order suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $322.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to distribute the bond of $1500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) [Bond number suppressed] [The tenant/s] - $1,177.02 [The landlord/s] -$ 322.98

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The first application (5218131) was filed by the tenants. It seeks repayment of their bond.
The landlord filed a later application (5263959) seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In substance, the proceedings involve claims by the landlord against the tenants’ bond and the hearing proceeded on that basis.

How much is owed for rent?

There is agreement that the tenants should pay the landlord one additional day’s rent.

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.
Because it will feature in this order, I note at the outset s.49 RTA which requires that, “ Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The tenants had the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy. They separately arranged for commercial carpet cleaning.
Clearly that is a responsible approach to ensuring their end of tenancy obligations were met. The landlord says that they were very good tenants.
The landlord says that the carpets were nevertheless still dirty and required further cleaning which she paid for. She says that the shower door was coated with residues that it took her several hours and “shower witch” treatment to remove. Compensation is sought.
The photographs provided by the landlord show that the shower door was not left in the condition it was provided in or that the landlord was able to return it to by the treatment she applied.
In that respect I find that the tenants did not meet their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
No opportunity was given to the tenants to do the work themselves but I do not think it likely that they would have been able to have their cleaners do that work within the scope of their general cleaning brief or that the tenants would have been able to do it themselves without the same time and effort put in by the landlord. That being so, the tenants were not disadvantaged by the landlord not giving them an opportunity to mitigate the situation themselves. I find the landlord’s compensation claim proved and reasonable.
As regards the carpet, had the landlord given the tenants the opportunity, they would have been able to have their carpet cleaner assess the landlord’s claim that it had not properly cleaned the carpets and redo them if required. The tenants have been disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to do that, which may have enabled them to rectify any breach without cost. That having been the effect of the landlord’s breach of her obligations under s.49, the landlord’s claim is declined.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the cost of repairing a towel rail that had come off the wall. The tenants say it was not subjected to any unusual treatment and was not secured to a stud but only to the gib board.
The evidence does not show any careless or negligent act or omission by the tenants that led to the towel rail becoming dislodged. The photos tend to support the tenants’ evidence about how it was secured. That claim is declined.
The tenants do not dispute the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing a back door key, as proved by the receipt provided.
The landlord claims compensation of $250.00 for the cost of removing green waste which she says resulted from the tenants’ failure to keep the grounds reasonably clean and tidy.
Grounds are a shared responsibility. The tenants’ obligation is to keep them reasonably clean and tidy. More “structural” or specialised grounds work is for the landlord. It is put this way on the tenancy Services website: “Tenants must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. This includes mowing the lawns and weeding the gardens. Tenants won't have to do this if the landlord has agreed to do this in the tenancy agreement. If a tenant wants to remove or prune a tree, shrub or hedge, they should get the landlord’s written consent first. If they do this, the tenant is then responsible for removing the cuttings. Landlords are usually responsible for pruning and maintaining trees, shrubs and hedges. If they are, they would normally remove the cuttings too. This minimises the risk of damage. Some trees and shrubs may need special care, skill or knowledge to maintain them. They could also be protected species, or of local/historical interest and can’t be removed.”
The tenants acknowledge having little gardening expertise. They mowed the lawns and did obvious weeding but were not skilled at knowing what plants were wanted and what ought to be removed.
The landlord says that the large quantity of green waste that needed to be removed was because the tenants allowed weeds to grow very large. She however did not do much of the grounds maintenance that was her responsibility and did not conduct regular inspections, through which she could have let the tenants know what her expectations were in terms of removal of unwanted growth.
I find it more likely than not that the quantity of green waste that needed to be removed was contributed to by the tenants not fully meeting their obligation to keep those parts of the grounds under better control. The landlord’s oversights were a major contributing factor.
As noted, grounds maintenance is a shared responsibility. I find that the cost of removing the green waste, as proved by the invoice provided, should also be shared. I find the appropriate proportions to be, tenants - $100.00/ landlord - $150.00.
No order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218131 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218131 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions