What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4587853?

The tribunal order states: Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren

How much money was awarded in case 4587853?

ORDER Haven Living Management Limite…: $520.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4587853?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4587853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9485146-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4587853?

The tribunal order states: Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren

How much money was awarded in case 4587853?

ORDER Haven Living Management Limite…: $520.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4587853?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4587853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9485146-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 3, 8 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4587853 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4587853. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ORDER Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren McGregor and Matthew McGregor	$520.44		ORDER Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren McGregor and Matthew McGregor

Order

Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren McGregor and Matthew McGregor $520.44, being the amount the Tribunal ordered from the bond in favour of Haven Living Management in its decision of 6 July 2023.

Reasons

Background

Hannah McGregor attended the hearing for the tenants.
Arvind Daji attended the hearing for the landlord. He managed the tenancy for the landlord.
This is a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision of 6 July 2023 after a hearing that day. The tenants did not attend that hearing which proceeded in their absence. After the hearing, the Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay the landlord $520.44 from the bond.
Earlier today, I issued another decision granting the tenants’ application for a rehearing of that decision. I accepted that the tenants made a genuine mistake about the date of the hearing.
In consequence of that finding I considered the matter de novo with the benefit of the tenants’ submissions and evidence on this occasion. The landlord’s application
The landlord’s application is for compensation for the cost of garden work following the end of the tenancy, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond. Legal principles
Under s 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The “premises” includes the house and “any land”. 1
The starting point is that the tenants are responsible for keeping the grounds clean and reasonably tidy. On the other hand under s 45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Tasks such as mowing the lawn may be seen as a tenant responsibility and tasks such as trimming large trees might be seen as a landlord responsibility.
It is often not entirely clear where the tenants’ and the landlords’ responsibilities lie in this regard. For example, is it the tenant’s or the landlord’s responsibility to control driveway weeds? Therefore, it is preferable if the parties’ obligations are spelt out clearly in the tenancy agreement. Often it is the tenant who is expected to mow and weed for example, but it is common for landlords agree to maintain the grounds, including mowing and weeding. The events
The premises in this case has only a small amount of outdoor area belonging to it. There is no outdoor entertaining area – just some landscaped planted areas and a narrow corridor of land leading to the clothesline. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 2.
When the tenancy began, a different property management company, Charta Property Group, was managing the tenancy. The tenancy agreement is silent as to the parties’ ground tidiness/maintenance duties. However, some months into the tenancy, when the grounds needed maintaining and/or tidying, the tenants asked the property management company to attend to it. The property management company subsequently sent a contractor out who tidied the grounds.
Mr Daji’s company, Haven, took over the management of the tenancy partway through the tenancy.
The tenants texted Mr Daji several times to ask that the grounds which were becoming overgrown with weeds be attended to. Mr Daji never responded to the tenants’ requests. The weeds continued to grow.
There were several inspections of the premises during the tenancy and Mr Daji never raised the deteriorating condition of the grounds with the tenants as a breach or something they should attend to.
In March of 2023, the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy, advising they would be moving out on 10 April 2023.
Mr Daji, keen to ensure the premises were re-tenanted promptly arranged a contractor to attend to the gardens on 23 March 2023, which was about three weeks prior to the tenancy ending. He did not tell the tenants prior to booking the contractor that the tenants would be expected to contribute to the contractor’s costs, or that the tenants were in breach of any obligations to keep the garden tidy. Nor had Mr Daji mentioned any such obligations during the whole of the tenancy. It was only after the tenancy had ended and the tenants had moved out that Mr Daji asked that the tenants pay for the contractor. Discussion
After the initial property managers attended to the garden, the tenants understood that the landlord would attend to the grounds. I consider that once the property managers attended to the grounds on the tenants’ request, it was implicit that it was the landlord who would maintain and tidy the grounds. That state of affairs became an implied term of the tenancy agreement.
The new property manager never responded to the tenants’ repeated texts about the need to attend to the garden. It never suggested that it was actually the tenants who should attend to the garden. Then, prior to the tenancy ending and without consulting the tenants, the property manager had a contractor do the garden work without ever telling the tenants that the tenants would be asked to pay for it. Conclusion
The landlord’s actions were in breach of the implied term that I have found existed that it was the landlord who would look after the grounds.
The landlord never suggested to the tenants that they were mistaken as to the existence of the implied term even though (if the tenants were mistaken) the landlord had every opportunity to do so. It should have said the tenants were mistaken, for example, when the tenants asked for the grounds to be attended to in reliance upon the implied term.
Further, it was unfair to the tenants that the landlord engaged a contractor without telling the tenants they would be liable for the cost, bearing in mind the tenancy still had several weeks to run at the time.
The tenants were not responsible for keeping the garden tidy during the tenancy. The landlord was.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for reimbursement for the garden work is dismissed.
To restore the status quo, the landlord must repay the $520.44 that the Tribunal incorrectly ordered in the landlord’s favour.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4587853. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ORDER Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren McGregor and Matthew McGregor	$520.44		ORDER Haven Living Management Limited must immediately repay Hannah Keren McGregor and Matthew McGregor

Order

Reasons

Background

Hannah McGregor attended the hearing for the tenants.
Arvind Daji attended the hearing for the landlord. He managed the tenancy for the landlord.
This is a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision of 6 July 2023 after a hearing that day. The tenants did not attend that hearing which proceeded in their absence. After the hearing, the Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay the landlord $520.44 from the bond.
Earlier today, I issued another decision granting the tenants’ application for a rehearing of that decision. I accepted that the tenants made a genuine mistake about the date of the hearing.
In consequence of that finding I considered the matter de novo with the benefit of the tenants’ submissions and evidence on this occasion. The landlord’s application
The landlord’s application is for compensation for the cost of garden work following the end of the tenancy, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond. Legal principles
Under s 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The “premises” includes the house and “any land”. 1
The starting point is that the tenants are responsible for keeping the grounds clean and reasonably tidy. On the other hand under s 45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Tasks such as mowing the lawn may be seen as a tenant responsibility and tasks such as trimming large trees might be seen as a landlord responsibility.
It is often not entirely clear where the tenants’ and the landlords’ responsibilities lie in this regard. For example, is it the tenant’s or the landlord’s responsibility to control driveway weeds? Therefore, it is preferable if the parties’ obligations are spelt out clearly in the tenancy agreement. Often it is the tenant who is expected to mow and weed for example, but it is common for landlords agree to maintain the grounds, including mowing and weeding. The events
The premises in this case has only a small amount of outdoor area belonging to it. There is no outdoor entertaining area – just some landscaped planted areas and a narrow corridor of land leading to the clothesline. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 2.
When the tenancy began, a different property management company, Charta Property Group, was managing the tenancy. The tenancy agreement is silent as to the parties’ ground tidiness/maintenance duties. However, some months into the tenancy, when the grounds needed maintaining and/or tidying, the tenants asked the property management company to attend to it. The property management company subsequently sent a contractor out who tidied the grounds.
Mr Daji’s company, Haven, took over the management of the tenancy partway through the tenancy.
The tenants texted Mr Daji several times to ask that the grounds which were becoming overgrown with weeds be attended to. Mr Daji never responded to the tenants’ requests. The weeds continued to grow.
There were several inspections of the premises during the tenancy and Mr Daji never raised the deteriorating condition of the grounds with the tenants as a breach or something they should attend to.
In March of 2023, the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy, advising they would be moving out on 10 April 2023.
Mr Daji, keen to ensure the premises were re-tenanted promptly arranged a contractor to attend to the gardens on 23 March 2023, which was about three weeks prior to the tenancy ending. He did not tell the tenants prior to booking the contractor that the tenants would be expected to contribute to the contractor’s costs, or that the tenants were in breach of any obligations to keep the garden tidy. Nor had Mr Daji mentioned any such obligations during the whole of the tenancy. It was only after the tenancy had ended and the tenants had moved out that Mr Daji asked that the tenants pay for the contractor. Discussion
After the initial property managers attended to the garden, the tenants understood that the landlord would attend to the grounds. I consider that once the property managers attended to the grounds on the tenants’ request, it was implicit that it was the landlord who would maintain and tidy the grounds. That state of affairs became an implied term of the tenancy agreement.
The new property manager never responded to the tenants’ repeated texts about the need to attend to the garden. It never suggested that it was actually the tenants who should attend to the garden. Then, prior to the tenancy ending and without consulting the tenants, the property manager had a contractor do the garden work without ever telling the tenants that the tenants would be asked to pay for it. Conclusion
The landlord’s actions were in breach of the implied term that I have found existed that it was the landlord who would look after the grounds.
The landlord never suggested to the tenants that they were mistaken as to the existence of the implied term even though (if the tenants were mistaken) the landlord had every opportunity to do so. It should have said the tenants were mistaken, for example, when the tenants asked for the grounds to be attended to in reliance upon the implied term.
Further, it was unfair to the tenants that the landlord engaged a contractor without telling the tenants they would be liable for the cost, bearing in mind the tenancy still had several weeks to run at the time.
The tenants were not responsible for keeping the garden tidy during the tenancy. The landlord was.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for reimbursement for the garden work is dismissed.
To restore the status quo, the landlord must repay the $520.44 that the Tribunal incorrectly ordered in the landlord’s favour.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4587853 — State of repair at Flat 3, 8 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4587853 — State of repair at Flat 3, 8 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions