What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4621157?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4621157?

Advertising Cost: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Break Lease Costs: $645.23 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Testing Cost (Partial: $53.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621157?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9250757-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4621157?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4621157?

Advertising Cost: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Break Lease Costs: $645.23 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Testing Cost (Partial: $53.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621157?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9250757-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

223D Apotu Road, Kauri, RD 1, Kauri 0185 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4621157 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621157 — net $816.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease costs	$645.23	Break lease costs
Advertising cost	$97.75	Advertising cost
Testing cost (partial	$53.50	Testing cost (partial
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$816.92
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$816.92

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Hamid Zeighamifard to pay Whangarei Real Estate Ltd t/as Harcourts Just Rentals (as agent for Abby Carthew) $816.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6095886-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Whangarei Real Estate Ltd: $816.92 Hamid Zeighamifard: $1,983.08

Reasons

Background

Mr Zeighamifard entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy commencing on 12 August 2022.
In early April 2023, Mr Zeighamifard asked to be released from the tenancy on the grounds that he had to re-locate to Auckland for work.
The tenancy ended on 14 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks costs related to the ending of the fixed term tenancy, cleaning, and garden tidy up costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 2 August 2023. Ms Piper and Mr Marriner represented the landlord. Mr Zeighamifard attended the hearing by phone. Break lease related costs (including advertising and testing)
Where a tenant surrenders a tenancy and the landlord consents to the surrender, the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant “any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination” 1 .
Harcourts Just Rentals seeks: a. $645.23 for time and travel costs associated with the surrender of the tenancy and acquiring new tenants. b. $97.75 for advertising costs (Trade Me). c. $214.00 for routine (between tenancies) methamphetamine testing costs.
Mr Zeighamifard submitted that the administrative (time and travel) costs claimed are excessive.
Mr Piper provided a detailed break down of the administrative costs claimed.
The costs include labour associated with associated with communicating with the landlord and tenant, advertising, carrying out a viewing, processing applications and reference checking, carrying out an exit inspection, and completing a new tenancy agreement.
I accept that all of this work was a direct and necessary consequence of ending the tenancy before the expiry of the fixed term. The total time claimed (4 hours and 15 minutes) is not unreasonable. 1 Section 44A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Mr Zeighamifard accepted that the advertising costs are an actual cost incurred by the landlord, but he submitted that the landlord would have incurred this cost anyway at the end of his fixed term tenancy in August 2023.
However, this is not a certainty. A landlord can sometimes re-let the premises without the need for advertising. Because of this, there is no reasonable basis to discount the actual cost incurred by the landlord.
The administrative and advertising costs claimed total less than the equivalent of one week’s rent plus GST, which was a common fixed amount charged by landlords before the law change in February 2021, and which was commonly upheld by the landlord as a reasonable estimate of the actual costs associated with ending the tenancy and re-letting the premises.
Mr Zeighamifard submitted that the routine methamphetamine testing cost falls to the landlord, and there is nothing in his tenancy agreement that requires him to pay for this cost.
The landlord does not need to rely upon the tenancy agreement to seek payment, or partial payment, of this type of cost in a break-lease scenario. The cost is recoverable on a compensation basis. The argument is that if it wasn’t for the break lease the landlord would not have incurred this cost until the end of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord has incurred an “additional” cost as a result of the early termination.
The cost is not truly additional, because (unlike the advertising fee) it is a cost that would certainly be incurred by the landlord at the end of the fixed term. The landlord did not have to pay for an ‘extra’ test, but the cost was brought forward.
This is a genuine detriment to the landlord, and it is appropriate to award part of the methamphetamine testing cost to compensate the landlord for this detriment.
Having regard to the length of time that the tenancy was reduced by due to the early termination, I will award the landlord 25% of the methamphetamine testing costs. Cleaning and gardening
Tenants must leave the premises (including lawns and gardens) reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 .
The landlord seeks $181.13 for cleaning and $400.00 for garden work at the end of the tenancy. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
In support of the claim, Ms Piper provided copies of photographs taken at the final inspection on 15 May, after the tenant vacated.
It is noted that Ms Piper also provided photographs taken on 8 May, the day after the initial agreed termination date. Mr Zeighamifard had not yet vacated on 8 May, and the end date was extended by agreement. I have not given weight to these photographs in considering the landlord’s claim for cleaning, because they do not show the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Piper also provided detailed notes and photographs of the property from the beginning of the tenancy.
Mr Zeighamifard disputed the claim for cleaning and gardening. He submitted that he was dissatisfied with the condition of the premises when he moved in, and he and his partner had to carry out cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at that time.
He submitted that he left the premises in a better condition than they were at the beginning of the tenancy.
At hearing, Mr Zeighamifard stated that he had video evidence that he wanted to submit. I agreed to allow a period of time after the end of the hearing for Mr Zeighamifard to submit this evidence, and for the landlord to submit additional photographs if they wished to.
Mr Zeighamifard provided three video recordings, taken at the time that he left the property. The videos show parts of the inside the house (focussing on the kitchen), and the lawns and gardens.
Ms Piper’s photographs show some minor issues, particularly in areas such as the grooves of ranchslider doors.
However, tenants are not required to clean to a ‘show home’ standard. Having regard to Ms Piper’s photographs and to Mr Zeighamifard’s videos, I am satisfied that the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Similar considerations apply to the gardening / lawn mowing claim.
Ms Piper described the property as “semi-rural”. The house is on approximately half an acre of lawns and gardens.
Mr Zeighamifard provided numerous photographs showing the condition of the lawns and gardens at the beginning of the tenancy.
Claims for cleaning and gardening are not based on a comparison between the condition at the beginning of the tenancy and the condition at the end. Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Landlords have a separate obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy 3 .
However, the condition at the beginning of the tenancy does provide a tenant with a guideline of the landlord’s expectations of what amounts to “reasonably clean and tidy”.
In this instance, the evidence provided to me does not show that the tenant failed to meet that standard, either in terms of the length of the grass or the condition of the gardens.
Therefore, this part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been partially successful in this application, and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 4 .
The landlord will receive $816.92 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621157 — net $816.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease costs	$645.23	Break lease costs
Advertising cost	$97.75	Advertising cost
Testing cost (partial	$53.50	Testing cost (partial
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$816.92
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$816.92

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Hamid Zeighamifard to pay Whangarei Real Estate Ltd t/as Harcourts Just Rentals (as agent for Abby Carthew) $816.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6095886-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Whangarei Real Estate Ltd: $816.92 Hamid Zeighamifard: $1,983.08

Reasons

Background

Mr Zeighamifard entered into a one-year fixed term tenancy commencing on 12 August 2022.
In early April 2023, Mr Zeighamifard asked to be released from the tenancy on the grounds that he had to re-locate to Auckland for work.
The tenancy ended on 14 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks costs related to the ending of the fixed term tenancy, cleaning, and garden tidy up costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 2 August 2023. Ms Piper and Mr Marriner represented the landlord. Mr Zeighamifard attended the hearing by phone. Break lease related costs (including advertising and testing)
Where a tenant surrenders a tenancy and the landlord consents to the surrender, the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant “any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination” 1 .
Harcourts Just Rentals seeks: a. $645.23 for time and travel costs associated with the surrender of the tenancy and acquiring new tenants. b. $97.75 for advertising costs (Trade Me). c. $214.00 for routine (between tenancies) methamphetamine testing costs.
Mr Zeighamifard submitted that the administrative (time and travel) costs claimed are excessive.
Mr Piper provided a detailed break down of the administrative costs claimed.
The costs include labour associated with associated with communicating with the landlord and tenant, advertising, carrying out a viewing, processing applications and reference checking, carrying out an exit inspection, and completing a new tenancy agreement.
I accept that all of this work was a direct and necessary consequence of ending the tenancy before the expiry of the fixed term. The total time claimed (4 hours and 15 minutes) is not unreasonable. 1 Section 44A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Mr Zeighamifard accepted that the advertising costs are an actual cost incurred by the landlord, but he submitted that the landlord would have incurred this cost anyway at the end of his fixed term tenancy in August 2023.
However, this is not a certainty. A landlord can sometimes re-let the premises without the need for advertising. Because of this, there is no reasonable basis to discount the actual cost incurred by the landlord.
The administrative and advertising costs claimed total less than the equivalent of one week’s rent plus GST, which was a common fixed amount charged by landlords before the law change in February 2021, and which was commonly upheld by the landlord as a reasonable estimate of the actual costs associated with ending the tenancy and re-letting the premises.
Mr Zeighamifard submitted that the routine methamphetamine testing cost falls to the landlord, and there is nothing in his tenancy agreement that requires him to pay for this cost.
The landlord does not need to rely upon the tenancy agreement to seek payment, or partial payment, of this type of cost in a break-lease scenario. The cost is recoverable on a compensation basis. The argument is that if it wasn’t for the break lease the landlord would not have incurred this cost until the end of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord has incurred an “additional” cost as a result of the early termination.
The cost is not truly additional, because (unlike the advertising fee) it is a cost that would certainly be incurred by the landlord at the end of the fixed term. The landlord did not have to pay for an ‘extra’ test, but the cost was brought forward.
This is a genuine detriment to the landlord, and it is appropriate to award part of the methamphetamine testing cost to compensate the landlord for this detriment.
Having regard to the length of time that the tenancy was reduced by due to the early termination, I will award the landlord 25% of the methamphetamine testing costs. Cleaning and gardening
Tenants must leave the premises (including lawns and gardens) reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 .
The landlord seeks $181.13 for cleaning and $400.00 for garden work at the end of the tenancy. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
In support of the claim, Ms Piper provided copies of photographs taken at the final inspection on 15 May, after the tenant vacated.
It is noted that Ms Piper also provided photographs taken on 8 May, the day after the initial agreed termination date. Mr Zeighamifard had not yet vacated on 8 May, and the end date was extended by agreement. I have not given weight to these photographs in considering the landlord’s claim for cleaning, because they do not show the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Piper also provided detailed notes and photographs of the property from the beginning of the tenancy.
Mr Zeighamifard disputed the claim for cleaning and gardening. He submitted that he was dissatisfied with the condition of the premises when he moved in, and he and his partner had to carry out cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at that time.
He submitted that he left the premises in a better condition than they were at the beginning of the tenancy.
At hearing, Mr Zeighamifard stated that he had video evidence that he wanted to submit. I agreed to allow a period of time after the end of the hearing for Mr Zeighamifard to submit this evidence, and for the landlord to submit additional photographs if they wished to.
Mr Zeighamifard provided three video recordings, taken at the time that he left the property. The videos show parts of the inside the house (focussing on the kitchen), and the lawns and gardens.
Ms Piper’s photographs show some minor issues, particularly in areas such as the grooves of ranchslider doors.
However, tenants are not required to clean to a ‘show home’ standard. Having regard to Ms Piper’s photographs and to Mr Zeighamifard’s videos, I am satisfied that the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Similar considerations apply to the gardening / lawn mowing claim.
Ms Piper described the property as “semi-rural”. The house is on approximately half an acre of lawns and gardens.
Mr Zeighamifard provided numerous photographs showing the condition of the lawns and gardens at the beginning of the tenancy.
Claims for cleaning and gardening are not based on a comparison between the condition at the beginning of the tenancy and the condition at the end. Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Landlords have a separate obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy 3 .
However, the condition at the beginning of the tenancy does provide a tenant with a guideline of the landlord’s expectations of what amounts to “reasonably clean and tidy”.
In this instance, the evidence provided to me does not show that the tenant failed to meet that standard, either in terms of the length of the grass or the condition of the gardens.
Therefore, this part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been partially successful in this application, and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 4 .
The landlord will receive $816.92 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621157 — Tenancy dispute at 223D Apotu Road, Kauri, RD 1, Kauri 0185

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621157 — Tenancy dispute at 223D Apotu Road, Kauri, RD 1, Kauri 0185

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