What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309257 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5309257?

Relocation Assistance: $2,850.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309257?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13502871-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309257 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5309257?

Relocation Assistance: $2,850.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309257?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13502871-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

119 Helenslee Road, Pokeno, RD 2, Pokeno 2472 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309257 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309257 — net $6,650.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$460.00		Rent arrears
Return of bond and other amounts paid to unallocated		$4,260.00	Return of bond and other amounts paid to unallocated
Relocation assistance		$2,850.00	Relocation assistance
Total award	$460.00	$7,110.00
Net award		$6,650.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,650.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant seeks the refund of bond that she says has been paid but not lodged by the landlord. The tenant also seeks a full refund of her rent because the landlord has unlawfully issued a 63 days’ termination notice without cause.

I consider that compensation and exemplary damages under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) is a more appropriate remedy to the landlord’s invalid issuance of the 63 days’ notice. The landlord is a corporate entity and it is not possible for a corporate entity to use the premises principally as a place of residence nor have “family members” using it as a place of residence.

The landlord adduced direct evidence showing that the premises have been occupied by the landlord’s directors/shareholders/family members. The premises had not been relet after the end of the tenancy.

The landlord sought rent arrears of $460.00 and $1,422.26 towards cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy, maintaining that the premises had not been returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

I have considered the tenant’s evidence of the state of cleanliness at the end of the tenancy. While I find that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, I consider the landlord’s claim of $1,422.26 towards cleaning costs excessive.

The standard of cleanliness expected of the tenant is reasonable only rather than a higher or professional standard of cleanliness. I must also consider fair wear and tear.

Against that backdrop, I consider that it fair and just to set off the cleaning costs against the landlord’s incorrect issuance of a 63 days’ notice. I do not think that an award of exemplary damages against the landlord under section 60AA RTA appropriate because the landlord did not intentionally issue an invalid notice to the tenant. The landlord acted in good faith, although ultimately erroneous.

The landlord then gave the tenant ample time to move out and deferred the move out date beyond 3 months, if more time is needed by the tenant to move out. The tenant was also accorded a “relocation assistance” of $2,850.00 as a gesture of goodwill.

Having regard to the above facts, I consider it fair and just that the cleaning costs is set off against penalty owing by the landlord’s issuance of an invalid 63 days’ notice.

I only award the relocation assistance of $2,850.00 to the tenant, upholding the landlord’s offer to pay that amount.

Finally, the tenant produced bank confirmation of $4,260.00 being made to the landlord at the start of the tenancy which was however not referenced properly in her name or to the tenancy in question.

I accept the landlord’s explanation on the $4,260.00 payment as follows: At the time the funds were received, they were receipted into our holding account, which is used for payments that cannot be immediately allocated. The payment details did not match any known tenant or expected amount, and no prior notification had been provided to assist with identification. The relevant information only came to light later during the hearing process, when requested by the adjudicator. We did make enquiries at the time, including contacting a tenant with a similar name; however, they confirmed the funds were not theirs. Without sufficient information, the payment could not be correctly attributed. We have now been provided with the necessary information through the court process to accurately identify the source of the funds. Had the relevant payment details and notification been provided at the outset, this situation would have been able to be resolved promptly, and the funds correctly allocated and lodged at the time of receipt. In line with standard accounting practice, unallocated funds are held in our holding account pending clarification. Now that the payment has been identified, we are happy to arrange a refund.

I direct the refund of the $4,260.00 to the tenant accordingly.

I make no award of exemplary damages for non-lodgment of the bond in respect of the $4,260.00 because the funds were not correctly referenced to the tenant due to no fault of the landlord. The landlord had not intentionally breached section 19 RTA.

The rent arrears at the end of the tenancy will be set off against the above amounts payable to the tenant.

Only the amounts set out in the table above are proved.

I order the suppression of the tenant’s name because the tenant has been largely successful in her claims.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309257 — net $6,650.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$460.00		Rent arrears
Return of bond and other amounts paid to unallocated		$4,260.00	Return of bond and other amounts paid to unallocated
Relocation assistance		$2,850.00	Relocation assistance
Total award	$460.00	$7,110.00
Net award		$6,650.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,650.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Realty 2000 Limited T/A Rental Investment Management Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $6,650.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks the refund of bond that she says has been paid but not lodged by the landlord. The tenant also seeks a full refund of her rent because the landlord has unlawfully issued a 63 days’ termination notice without cause.
I consider that compensation and exemplary damages under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) is a more appropriate remedy to the landlord’s invalid issuance of the 63 days’ notice. The landlord is a corporate entity and it is not possible for a corporate entity to use the premises principally as a place of residence nor have “family members” using it as a place of residence.
The landlord adduced direct evidence showing that the premises have been occupied by the landlord’s directors/shareholders/family members. The premises had not been relet after the end of the tenancy.
The landlord sought rent arrears of $460.00 and $1,422.26 towards cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy, maintaining that the premises had not been returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I have considered the tenant’s evidence of the state of cleanliness at the end of the tenancy. While I find that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, I consider the landlord’s claim of $1,422.26 towards cleaning costs excessive.
The standard of cleanliness expected of the tenant is reasonable only rather than a higher or professional standard of cleanliness. I must also consider fair wear and tear.
Against that backdrop, I consider that it fair and just to set off the cleaning costs against the landlord’s incorrect issuance of a 63 days’ notice. I do not think that an award of exemplary damages against the landlord under section 60AA RTA appropriate because the landlord did not intentionally issue an invalid notice to the tenant. The landlord acted in good faith, although ultimately erroneous.
The landlord then gave the tenant ample time to move out and deferred the move out date beyond 3 months, if more time is needed by the tenant to move out. The tenant was also accorded a “relocation assistance” of $2,850.00 as a gesture of goodwill.
Having regard to the above facts, I consider it fair and just that the cleaning costs is set off against penalty owing by the landlord’s issuance of an invalid 63 days’ notice.
I only award the relocation assistance of $2,850.00 to the tenant, upholding the landlord’s offer to pay that amount.
Finally, the tenant produced bank confirmation of $4,260.00 being made to the landlord at the start of the tenancy which was however not referenced properly in her name or to the tenancy in question.
I accept the landlord’s explanation on the $4,260.00 payment as follows: At the time the funds were received, they were receipted into our holding account, which is used for payments that cannot be immediately allocated. The payment details did not match any known tenant or expected amount, and no prior notification had been provided to assist with identification. The relevant information only came to light later during the hearing process, when requested by the adjudicator. We did make enquiries at the time, including contacting a tenant with a similar name; however, they confirmed the funds were not theirs. Without sufficient information, the payment could not be correctly attributed. We have now been provided with the necessary information through the court process to accurately identify the source of the funds. Had the relevant payment details and notification been provided at the outset, this situation would have been able to be resolved promptly, and the funds correctly allocated and lodged at the time of receipt. In line with standard accounting practice, unallocated funds are held in our holding account pending clarification. Now that the payment has been identified, we are happy to arrange a refund.
I direct the refund of the $4,260.00 to the tenant accordingly.
I make no award of exemplary damages for non-lodgment of the bond in respect of the $4,260.00 because the funds were not correctly referenced to the tenant due to no fault of the landlord. The landlord had not intentionally breached section 19 RTA.
The rent arrears at the end of the tenancy will be set off against the above amounts payable to the tenant.
Only the amounts set out in the table above are proved.
I order the suppression of the tenant’s name because the tenant has been largely successful in her claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309257 — Rent arrears at 119 Helenslee Road, Pokeno, RD 2, Pokeno 2472

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309257 — Rent arrears at 119 Helenslee Road, Pokeno, RD 2, Pokeno 2472

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions