What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4596829?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but

How much money was awarded in case 4596829?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $145.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4596829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4596829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9306321-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4596829?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but

How much money was awarded in case 4596829?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $145.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4596829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4596829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9306321-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42 Burnside Crescent, Burnside, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4596829 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4596829 — net $254.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$145.72		Rent arrears
Compensation - gardening		$300.00	Compensation - gardening
Compensation – loss of use of kitchen		$100.00	Compensation – loss of use of kitchen
Total award	$145.72	$400.00
Net award		$254.28
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$254.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4596829 — net $254.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$145.72		Rent arrears
Compensation - gardening		$300.00	Compensation - gardening
Compensation – loss of use of kitchen		$100.00	Compensation – loss of use of kitchen
Total award	$145.72	$400.00
Net award		$254.28
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$254.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord but no order is made as the landlord’s application is mostly unsuccessful. The tenant did not seek a name suppression order.
Orbit Property Management Limited as agent for Doraju Selvaraj must pay Nicola Renee Wall and David Shaun Tipene $254.28 immediately, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 (5427001-003) to Nicola Renee Wall and David Shaun Tipene immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for cleaning and for painting the walls of 2 bedrooms is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the replacement cost of a clothes dryer is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for compensation ($3,200.00) for the loss of use of the laundry and compensation ($1,400.00) for emotional stress is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for costs incurred attending mediation and the Tribunal hearing is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ross represented the landlord (Orbit) as agent for the (overseas based) owner.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning (part charge only) and for the cost of painting the walls in 2 bedrooms. The landlord also seeks the replacement cost of a clothes dryer.
The tenants have applied for compensation of $5,000.00 as well as costs for their time attending mediation and the Tribunal hearing today.
The tenants withdrew the application for costs for their time attending mediation and the hearing today and the Tribunal need not address that issue any further. Background
The tenancy started on 18 May 2017 and ended on 2 February 2023. It lasted around 5.5 years which is long by New Zealand standards.
During the course of the tenancy there have been 3 different property management firms. The current landlord company took over the management of the tenancy in November 2019.
The relationship between the tenants and their landlords over time, and between them and the owner, appears to have been largely cordial. It soured when the landlord notified an increase in rent by $175.00 per week, an increase the landlord considered was in line with market rent. That issue is not before the Tribunal.
After the tenancy ended the landlord made an application against the tenants for the costs noted above. The tenants then lodged a cross application. Despite an offer by the tenants to settle the dispute, mediation was not successful and the applications were set for hearing. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears of $685.72? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning (a part charge of $333.50) and for the repainting of walls in 2 bedrooms (a part charge of $1,000.00)? •Has the landlord proved a claim for the replacement cost ($500.00) of a missing clothes dryer? •Have the tenants proved their claims for compensation: $300.00 for time and costs spent on gardening; $100.00 for the loss of use of the kitchen due to leaking; $3,200.00 for a period of 32 weeks when they could not use the laundry and had to do their laundry at a laundromat; and $1,400.00 for emotional stress? Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears of $685.72?
Ms Ross provided rent summaries from the former property managers and from her firm’s rent ledger. The summary from her firm shows rent arrears of $685.72.
It is evidentially difficult for a landlord when it relies on rent summaries provided by property managers who are not present to give evidence. When tenancies change management, rent arrears can become an issue.
In this case, the tenants produced evidence from the start of the tenancy, that casts doubt on the correctness of the rent debt that has arisen.
The premises were advertised on an offer of one week’s free rent. That does not appear to have been taken into account in the rent summary provided by the property management company who was the first landlord.
Ms Ross is not at fault in this regard. She relied on the summary provided by her firm. However, the tenants have raised a defence to the rent claim which on the balance of probabilities, establishes that the historic rent records did not account for the advertised free rent period.
The Tribunal cannot find that the current landlord has proved a claim for rent arrears of $685.72 because it is probable that an advertised rent deduction has not been accounted for.
The tenants accepted rent arrears of $145.72. I make an order for that amount only. Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning (a part charge of $333.50) and for the repainting of walls in 2 bedrooms (a part charge of $1,000.00)?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by that party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must take into account the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
It is important to note that compensation is not punitive. It simply compensates a party for loss of enjoyment and other losses, inconvenience, and is some cases stress.
I find neither of the landlord’s compensation claims proved on the balance of probabilities.
Tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. That is an objective standard, not one established by the subjective opinion of either party.
Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies, especially after a tenancy of this length.
Both parties provided photographic evidence.
I have assessed that evidence and the oral evidence both parties gave. Although the landlord has only claimed part of the cleaning invoice, I find that the tenants met their statutory responsibility to leave the premises generally reasonably clean. That the landlord had an area of flooring deep cleaned does not establish a tenant breach, given the photographic evidence produced.
The tenants produced evidence that the tenant check list originally provided to them required them to place all rubbish in city council bins at the end of the tenancy. That is what they did. They put the bins out for collection. That was reasonable. The tenant check list initially provided did not require them to have the council bins emptied and cleaned.
The claim for painting the walls of 2 bedrooms is artificial. The landlord (the owner) has had the whole premises repainted except for 1 room. So, the premises were intended to be fully redecorated.
The property inspection report from the start of the tenancy records marks and stains to the walls of the 2 bedrooms for which the landlord has sought the cost of repainting.
The photos produced by both parties do not prove careless or intentional damage beyond fair wear and tear for a tenancy of this length.
The landlord chose to redecorate the premises generally. The cost of painting the walls in these 2 bedrooms is a business cost along with the painting of the other walls. The landlord has failed to establish a breach by the tenants for which the Tribunal should award compensation. Has the landlord proved a claim for the replacement cost ($500.00) of a missing clothes dryer?
The landlord noted that the clothes dryer, present at an inspection in September 2019, was missing at the end of the tenancy.
That inspection occurred before Orbit started managing the tenancy.
The tenants gave evidence (which I accept) that the laundry leaked due to an upstairs pipe leaking above the laundry ceiling. They said numerous contractors -plumbers, builders, and electricians – attended to assess the cause of the problem.
The electrician told them that the power sockets for the washing machine and clothes dryer were damaged due to a power surge as a consequence of the leaking and would have to be removed.
The tenants said that their property manager at the time (not Orbit) told them to dump the appliances given the electrician’s advice. They then purchased replacement appliances second hand.
Ms Ross could not give evidence about what occurred before Orbit started managing the tenancy.
The tenants’ evidence was reliable and credible.
I dismiss this claim for compensation for the replacement cost of a clothes dryer. Possibly, the owner of the premises has a claim against the former property manager, but that is not a matter for this Tribunal. Have the tenants proved their claims for compensation: $300.00 for time and costs spent on gardening; $100.00 for the loss of use of the kitchen due to leaking; $3,200.00 for a period of 32 weeks when they could not use the laundry and had to do their laundry at a laundromat; and $1,400.00 for emotional stress?
I find proved the tenants’ application for compensation for their time and cost spent gardening.
The tenancy was subject to the landlord maintaining the gardens.
The tenants said the first contractor was good, but he stopped and for a period between November 2019 and November 2022 the gardens were not done by any contractor (other than one who used a weed eater) so they kept the gardens weeded to ensure the property looked maintained.
The tenants said they incurred costs buying tools, for their time and for dump fees.
Ms Ross said the owner, not she, dealt with the gardening issue. She accepted that the gardens were not maintained for the period in question.
I award the tenants compensation of $300.00 as claimed which is objectively reasonable.
I also find proved the tenants’ claim for compensation of $100.00 for the period of 1 week when they could not use the kitchen due to leaking. The water leak affected the electrical fittings which raised safety issues.
I dismiss the tenants’ claim for compensation of $3,200.00 for a 32-week period when they were unable to use the laundry. This occurred during a period when Oribit was not their landlord, so the Tribunal cannot find any landlord breach by Orbit.
Nor should it award compensation against the owner, when the owner had an appointed agent managing the tenancy during that time.
This claim, if pursued, would need to be made against the property management company that was the landlord at the time the alleged breach occurred.
I dismiss the tenants’ claim for emotional stress. This claim has arisen principally out of the landlord’s notification of a (significant) rent increase. It also embraces the claims the landlord made against the tenants, which they consider were unreasonable.
The matters raised are not unexpected tensions as between landlord and tenant. Before the Tribunal would award compensation, it would probably need to find that the matters raised were vexatious. That each party has a different view does not mean that claims made are vexatious.
The Tribunal exists to adjudicate disputes between landlords and tenants. There was nothing exceptional about the matters raised in either application.
The breakdown of a landlord tenant relationship is not unusual. While it can be frustrating and stressful, it does not justify intervention by the Tribunal. As I have noted, compensation is usually awarded to address a breach of a party’s statutory responsibilities, only rarely to compensate for stress and worry, and even then, only in particular circumstances.
The landlord’s actions and its application does not meet a threshold where the Tribunal would award compensation for emotional harm. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $254.28, the net figure once the tenants’ successful claims have been offset against the landlord’s rent claim as allowed.
The bond will be paid the tenants in full.
No order is made for the reimbursement of the filing fees each party paid. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other; both applications are only partly successful. Name suppression
No name suppression orders are made. The landlord’s application is mostly unsuccessful, so the landlord is not entitled to name suppression - see section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4596829 — Rent arrears at 42 Burnside Crescent, Burnside, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4596829 — Rent arrears at 42 Burnside Crescent, Burnside, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions