What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4647854?

The tribunal order states: Alan Jerry Mac Mahon and Alison Plazanet to pay Five Am Property

How much money was awarded in case 4647854?

Cleaning: $240.40 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Final Water Bill (Agreed By Consent: $38.85 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647854?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647854?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4647854?

The tribunal order states: Alan Jerry Mac Mahon and Alison Plazanet to pay Five Am Property

How much money was awarded in case 4647854?

Cleaning: $240.40 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Final Water Bill (Agreed By Consent: $38.85 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647854?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647854?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 4 Abercrombie Street, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4647854 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4647854 — net $246.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent	$240.40		Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent
Final water bill (agreed by consent	$38.85		Final water bill (agreed by consent
Rubbish removal (agreed by consent	$166.75		Rubbish removal (agreed by consent
Garden tidy up etc	$300.00		Garden tidy up etc
Less compensation - breach of section 45		$500.00	Less compensation - breach of section 45
Total award	$746.00	$500.00
Net award	$246.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$246.00

Order

Alan Jerry Mac Mahon and Alison Plazanet to pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Janice And Martin Montgomerie Hadley Wood Properties Ltd $246.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (3565511-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Janice And Martin Montgomerie Hadley Wood Properties Ltd: $246.00 Alan Jerry Mac Mahon and Alison Plazanet: $1,954.00

Reasons

In March 2022, Mr Alan Mahon and Ms Alison Plazanet (the tenants) entered a tenancy agreement with Five AM Property Management Limited as agent for Janice and Martin Montgomerie Hadley Wood Properties Ltd (the landlord) for the property situated at 2/4 Abercrombie Street, Howick, Auckland. The tenancy started on 18 March 2022 and ended on 7 March 2023. The rent was $550.00 per week and the bond was $2,200.00.
The landlord has filed a claim for compensation for garden tidy up of $632.50 from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants had earlier agreed by consent to the landlord’s other claims for carpet cleaning $240.40, final water bill $38.85 and rubbish removal $166.75.
The tenants have filed a cross application disputing the landlord’s claim for compensation for garden tidy up and seek compensation of $690.00 for breaching its obligation to provide a provide and maintain a property in a reasonable state of repair, compensation of $835.71 for maintaining the garden’s hedges, shrubs and trees, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct. When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.
This matter was heard over two hearings. Ms Chisnal attended the first hearing for the landlord. Mr Shao attended for the second hearing for the landlord. Ms Plazanet and Mr Mahon attended both hearings in person. The landlord’s application

Did the tenants 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 (“RTA”).
In this case, the landlord claims $632.50 for weeding, garden tidy up, lawns, garden planter bed removal and rubbish removal. The landlord provided receipts, invoices and photographs in support of the claim.
The landlord raised concerns about the condition of the garden when the tenants left the property. Specifically, the landlord states that the garden was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The issues cited include: • Overgrown Lawns and Weeds: The lawns were excessively overgrown, particularly around the clothesline area. There was also long grass along the edges and weeds growing along the paths. • Cardboard Boxes and Rubbish: Cardboard boxes, which had been used as weed mats, were left in the garden. Additionally, there was rubbish from the compost bin that had not decomposed properly. • Garden Planter Box: The landlord also noted that a garden planter box, which had been built by the tenants, was not removed before they vacated the property. As a result, the area where the planter box was located needed to be restored with seed grass.
In summary, the landlord is dissatisfied with the state of the garden, citing issues with overgrown vegetation, leftover materials, and an unremoved planter box that required grass restoration.
Two weeks after moving out, the tenants requested a refund of their bond. The landlord responded by claiming that the garden was left in an unclean and untidy state, which the tenants dispute. The tenants argue that due to exceptionally wet weather conditions during the autumn and winter, they were unable to maintain the garden as they normally would have. They emphasise that they had consistently maintained the garden throughout their tenancy and took pride in its upkeep.
The tenants also point out that the rental agreement requires the property to be left in a "reasonably clean and tidy state", not necessarily in its original condition. They believe they met this standard, especially considering the severe weather conditions and the fact that the landlord did not maintain the trees, shrubs, and hedges during the tenancy. The tenants assert that these factors prevented them from performing their usual garden maintenance in the final months of their tenancy, including the notice period.
Additionally, the tenants are concerned about the cost of the garden clean-up invoice provided by the landlords, which they find excessively high compared to two other quotes from garden and landscaping services. The tenants submitted that if the Tenancy Tribunal determined that they are liable for the garden clean- up costs, they challenged the amount claimed and argued that they should only be responsible for the cost quoted by the less expensive companies.
I acknowledge the tenants’ evidence that severe weather conditions, including environmental factors, impacted their ability to maintain and tidy the garden during the final months of their tenancy, including the notice period. This acknowledgment is supported by the following: • Historical Inspections: No concerns or issues had been raised about the garden during the 3 previous standard inspections, indicating that the garden was generally well-maintained throughout the tenancy. • Weather Conditions: The tenants provided compelling evidence of the adverse weather conditions experienced in the last months of their tenancy, which likely affected the condition of the garden.
Given these factors, I accept that the tenants' usual standard of garden maintenance was compromised due to circumstances beyond their control during the final months of their tenancy.
I award a portion of the amount claimed, being $300.00, towards the costs for removal of the garden planter box and grass restoration, weeding, lawns and rubbish removal, which I consider reasonable in the circumstances. The tenants’ application Did the landlord breach their obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair and comply with healthy home standards?
Landlords have a legal obligation to provide and maintain rental properties in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. See section 45 RTA. This includes ensuring that the property is safe, habitable, and in good working order. Compliance with this section is crucial for the following reasons: • Legal Requirement: Section 45 mandates that landlords keep rental properties in a condition that meets basic standards of repair and maintenance. This legal requirement helps protect tenants' rights and ensures that properties are safe and functional. • Health and Safety: Adhering to repair and maintenance obligations is essential for tenant health and safety. For example, addressing issues like leaking gutters and water damage is crucial to prevent mould growth and other hazards that can impact tenants' well-being. • Compliance with Healthy Homes Standards: These standards, introduced as part of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019, set minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, and moisture control. Compliance with these standards is necessary to ensure that rental properties are healthy and suitable for habitation.
The tenants raised several concerns regarding the landlord’s failure to meet its repair and maintenance obligations under section 45 RTA. The tenants believe the house was not provided in a reasonable state of repair from the start of the tenancy. This includes missing light bulbs and delayed reimbursement for those items, as well as a prolonged delay in replacing safety lights outside the house (8 months). The tenants say the landlord failed to promptly address significant maintenance and healthy homes standard issues including gutter overflowing and flooding water issues. The tenants provided evidence (videos and photos) showing persistent leaks in the foyer. The landlord dismissed concerns about the leaking gutter despite evidence of water damage. Despite conducting three inspections, the landlord did not fix the documented leaks.
Having carefully considered the information available and the submissions and evidence given by the parties, I find the landlord was in breach of its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under section 45 RTA. This includes not addressing repair issues in a timely manner.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenants have met their obligations in notifying the landlord of the problem of missing lights, replacement of safety lights, ongoing gutter overflowing and foyer leaking issues.
The tenants have provided evidence of the house’s initial condition, the landlord's lack of responsiveness to maintenance issues, and the failure to address health and safety concerns.
The leaking issues in the foyer are not minor as it has been ongoing since the tenants moved in. Understandably, this would cause stress and inconvenience to the tenants. The frequency of the problem arising demonstrated a necessity to conduct a proper investigation into the problem. I find the landlord could have done more sooner based on the tenants’ repeated concerns.
As a result, the tenants are entitled to compensation for the loss of amenity and any associated inconveniences resulting from the landlord’s neglect and I fix that award at $500.00. In setting that amount, I am minded that the landlord's non- compliance with repair and maintenance obligations has impacted on the tenants' enjoyment of the property and their living conditions.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for maintaining hedges, shrubs, and trees?

The tenants say due to the landlord’s lack of responsiveness to maintenance requests, they took it upon themselves to maintain tress, shrubs and hedges.
The tenants gave evidence that they cleaned the whole garden’s hedges, shrubs and trees at least 3 times during their tenancy and claimed compensation of an estimated amount of 278.57x3 = $835.71 for such maintenance.
Tenants must notify the landlord of required maintenance, such as issues with hedges, trees and shrubs. This is important because it gives the landlord the opportunity to address and resolve the problem as per their obligations under the RTA.
The landlord must be given the first chance to fix any repair or maintenance issues. This ensures that the landlord can fulfil their legal responsibilities and avoid unnecessary disputes. If the landlord fails to act on the maintenance request, the tenant is allowed to undertake the repair themselves but only under certain conditions.
I am not satisfied that the tenants requested the maintenance to be done before they remedied the issue. As the tenants did not follow the correct procedure for addressing maintenance issues relating to trees, shrubs and hedges, I find they are not entitled to compensation. It is essential for tenants to notify landlords of maintenance issues, give the landlord a chance to remedy the problem, and follow the correct process, which can include issuing a 14-day breach notice, before undertaking repairs/maintenance themselves and seeking compensation
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants entitled to the ancillary costs claimed?

The tenants claim the parking fee, printing fee and cost of the USB key.
The parties bear their own costs of attending and preparing for hearing.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Neither party has been fully successful with their applications. Both parties have paid a filing fee and I do not consider it appropriate for either party to reimburse the other. Suppression
Under section 95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful with their applications.
In the absence of any sufficient grounds, they are not entitled to a suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4647854 — net $246.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent	$240.40		Carpet Cleaning (agreed by consent
Final water bill (agreed by consent	$38.85		Final water bill (agreed by consent
Rubbish removal (agreed by consent	$166.75		Rubbish removal (agreed by consent
Garden tidy up etc	$300.00		Garden tidy up etc
Less compensation - breach of section 45		$500.00	Less compensation - breach of section 45
Total award	$746.00	$500.00
Net award	$246.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$246.00

Order

Alan Jerry Mac Mahon and Alison Plazanet to pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Janice And Martin Montgomerie Hadley Wood Properties Ltd $246.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (3565511-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Janice And Martin Montgomerie Hadley Wood Properties Ltd: $246.00 Alan Jerry Mac Mahon and Alison Plazanet: $1,954.00

Reasons

In March 2022, Mr Alan Mahon and Ms Alison Plazanet (the tenants) entered a tenancy agreement with Five AM Property Management Limited as agent for Janice and Martin Montgomerie Hadley Wood Properties Ltd (the landlord) for the property situated at 2/4 Abercrombie Street, Howick, Auckland. The tenancy started on 18 March 2022 and ended on 7 March 2023. The rent was $550.00 per week and the bond was $2,200.00.
The landlord has filed a claim for compensation for garden tidy up of $632.50 from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants had earlier agreed by consent to the landlord’s other claims for carpet cleaning $240.40, final water bill $38.85 and rubbish removal $166.75.
The tenants have filed a cross application disputing the landlord’s claim for compensation for garden tidy up and seek compensation of $690.00 for breaching its obligation to provide a provide and maintain a property in a reasonable state of repair, compensation of $835.71 for maintaining the garden’s hedges, shrubs and trees, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In a civil claim such as this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct. When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.
This matter was heard over two hearings. Ms Chisnal attended the first hearing for the landlord. Mr Shao attended for the second hearing for the landlord. Ms Plazanet and Mr Mahon attended both hearings in person. The landlord’s application

Did the tenants 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 (“RTA”).
In this case, the landlord claims $632.50 for weeding, garden tidy up, lawns, garden planter bed removal and rubbish removal. The landlord provided receipts, invoices and photographs in support of the claim.
The landlord raised concerns about the condition of the garden when the tenants left the property. Specifically, the landlord states that the garden was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The issues cited include: • Overgrown Lawns and Weeds: The lawns were excessively overgrown, particularly around the clothesline area. There was also long grass along the edges and weeds growing along the paths. • Cardboard Boxes and Rubbish: Cardboard boxes, which had been used as weed mats, were left in the garden. Additionally, there was rubbish from the compost bin that had not decomposed properly. • Garden Planter Box: The landlord also noted that a garden planter box, which had been built by the tenants, was not removed before they vacated the property. As a result, the area where the planter box was located needed to be restored with seed grass.
In summary, the landlord is dissatisfied with the state of the garden, citing issues with overgrown vegetation, leftover materials, and an unremoved planter box that required grass restoration.
Two weeks after moving out, the tenants requested a refund of their bond. The landlord responded by claiming that the garden was left in an unclean and untidy state, which the tenants dispute. The tenants argue that due to exceptionally wet weather conditions during the autumn and winter, they were unable to maintain the garden as they normally would have. They emphasise that they had consistently maintained the garden throughout their tenancy and took pride in its upkeep.
The tenants also point out that the rental agreement requires the property to be left in a "reasonably clean and tidy state", not necessarily in its original condition. They believe they met this standard, especially considering the severe weather conditions and the fact that the landlord did not maintain the trees, shrubs, and hedges during the tenancy. The tenants assert that these factors prevented them from performing their usual garden maintenance in the final months of their tenancy, including the notice period.
Additionally, the tenants are concerned about the cost of the garden clean-up invoice provided by the landlords, which they find excessively high compared to two other quotes from garden and landscaping services. The tenants submitted that if the Tenancy Tribunal determined that they are liable for the garden clean- up costs, they challenged the amount claimed and argued that they should only be responsible for the cost quoted by the less expensive companies.
I acknowledge the tenants’ evidence that severe weather conditions, including environmental factors, impacted their ability to maintain and tidy the garden during the final months of their tenancy, including the notice period. This acknowledgment is supported by the following: • Historical Inspections: No concerns or issues had been raised about the garden during the 3 previous standard inspections, indicating that the garden was generally well-maintained throughout the tenancy. • Weather Conditions: The tenants provided compelling evidence of the adverse weather conditions experienced in the last months of their tenancy, which likely affected the condition of the garden.
Given these factors, I accept that the tenants' usual standard of garden maintenance was compromised due to circumstances beyond their control during the final months of their tenancy.
I award a portion of the amount claimed, being $300.00, towards the costs for removal of the garden planter box and grass restoration, weeding, lawns and rubbish removal, which I consider reasonable in the circumstances. The tenants’ application Did the landlord breach their obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair and comply with healthy home standards?
Landlords have a legal obligation to provide and maintain rental properties in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. See section 45 RTA. This includes ensuring that the property is safe, habitable, and in good working order. Compliance with this section is crucial for the following reasons: • Legal Requirement: Section 45 mandates that landlords keep rental properties in a condition that meets basic standards of repair and maintenance. This legal requirement helps protect tenants' rights and ensures that properties are safe and functional. • Health and Safety: Adhering to repair and maintenance obligations is essential for tenant health and safety. For example, addressing issues like leaking gutters and water damage is crucial to prevent mould growth and other hazards that can impact tenants' well-being. • Compliance with Healthy Homes Standards: These standards, introduced as part of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019, set minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, and moisture control. Compliance with these standards is necessary to ensure that rental properties are healthy and suitable for habitation.
The tenants raised several concerns regarding the landlord’s failure to meet its repair and maintenance obligations under section 45 RTA. The tenants believe the house was not provided in a reasonable state of repair from the start of the tenancy. This includes missing light bulbs and delayed reimbursement for those items, as well as a prolonged delay in replacing safety lights outside the house (8 months). The tenants say the landlord failed to promptly address significant maintenance and healthy homes standard issues including gutter overflowing and flooding water issues. The tenants provided evidence (videos and photos) showing persistent leaks in the foyer. The landlord dismissed concerns about the leaking gutter despite evidence of water damage. Despite conducting three inspections, the landlord did not fix the documented leaks.
Having carefully considered the information available and the submissions and evidence given by the parties, I find the landlord was in breach of its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under section 45 RTA. This includes not addressing repair issues in a timely manner.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenants have met their obligations in notifying the landlord of the problem of missing lights, replacement of safety lights, ongoing gutter overflowing and foyer leaking issues.
The tenants have provided evidence of the house’s initial condition, the landlord's lack of responsiveness to maintenance issues, and the failure to address health and safety concerns.
The leaking issues in the foyer are not minor as it has been ongoing since the tenants moved in. Understandably, this would cause stress and inconvenience to the tenants. The frequency of the problem arising demonstrated a necessity to conduct a proper investigation into the problem. I find the landlord could have done more sooner based on the tenants’ repeated concerns.
As a result, the tenants are entitled to compensation for the loss of amenity and any associated inconveniences resulting from the landlord’s neglect and I fix that award at $500.00. In setting that amount, I am minded that the landlord's non- compliance with repair and maintenance obligations has impacted on the tenants' enjoyment of the property and their living conditions.

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for maintaining hedges, shrubs, and trees?

The tenants say due to the landlord’s lack of responsiveness to maintenance requests, they took it upon themselves to maintain tress, shrubs and hedges.
The tenants gave evidence that they cleaned the whole garden’s hedges, shrubs and trees at least 3 times during their tenancy and claimed compensation of an estimated amount of 278.57x3 = $835.71 for such maintenance.
Tenants must notify the landlord of required maintenance, such as issues with hedges, trees and shrubs. This is important because it gives the landlord the opportunity to address and resolve the problem as per their obligations under the RTA.
The landlord must be given the first chance to fix any repair or maintenance issues. This ensures that the landlord can fulfil their legal responsibilities and avoid unnecessary disputes. If the landlord fails to act on the maintenance request, the tenant is allowed to undertake the repair themselves but only under certain conditions.
I am not satisfied that the tenants requested the maintenance to be done before they remedied the issue. As the tenants did not follow the correct procedure for addressing maintenance issues relating to trees, shrubs and hedges, I find they are not entitled to compensation. It is essential for tenants to notify landlords of maintenance issues, give the landlord a chance to remedy the problem, and follow the correct process, which can include issuing a 14-day breach notice, before undertaking repairs/maintenance themselves and seeking compensation
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants entitled to the ancillary costs claimed?

The tenants claim the parking fee, printing fee and cost of the USB key.
The parties bear their own costs of attending and preparing for hearing.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Neither party has been fully successful with their applications. Both parties have paid a filing fee and I do not consider it appropriate for either party to reimburse the other. Suppression
Under section 95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful with their applications.
In the absence of any sufficient grounds, they are not entitled to a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647854 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 4 Abercrombie Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647854 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 4 Abercrombie Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for maintaining hedges, shrubs, and trees?

Are the tenants entitled to the ancillary costs claimed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants entitled to compensation for maintaining hedges, shrubs, and trees?

Are the tenants entitled to the ancillary costs claimed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions