What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4701398?

The tribunal order states: Kate Renee Ineson and Marlene Jerhammar must pay Grenadier Rent Shop

How much money was awarded in case 4701398?

Associated Plastering And Painting: $664.30 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $908.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4593238 D…: $2,864.72 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $930.00 awarded to tenant; Bathroom fixtures and door handle an…: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,230.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4701398?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9745653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4701398?

The tribunal order states: Kate Renee Ineson and Marlene Jerhammar must pay Grenadier Rent Shop

How much money was awarded in case 4701398?

Associated Plastering And Painting: $664.30 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $908.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4593238 D…: $2,864.72 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $930.00 awarded to tenant; Bathroom fixtures and door handle an…: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,230.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4701398?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9745653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Vitalia Crescent, Lincoln 7608 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4701398 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4701398 — net $6,234.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4593238 dated 18/07/2023	$2,864.72		Previous order application 4593238 dated 18/07/2023
Carpet Cleaning: Stains and pet odours	$345.00		Carpet Cleaning: Stains and pet odours
Cleaning	$908.32		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,230.50		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$281.75		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Insurance excess	$550.00		Replace furnishings: Insurance excess
Repairs: Bathroom fixtures and door handle and	$299.00		Repairs: Bathroom fixtures and door handle and
associated plastering and painting	$664.30		associated plastering and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears		$930.00	Rent arrears
Total award	$7,164.03	$930.00
Net award	$6,234.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,234.03

Ms Ziolo and Mr Toa attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenants did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages for failing to vacate the premises at the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2023 pursuant to Tribunal order number 4593238 dated 18 July 2023. That order required the tenant to make a total payment to the landlord of $2,864.72. Since that order was made the tenant has paid $930.00 in reduction of the debt (leaving a balance owing of $1,934.72) which has been reflected in the table above. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant 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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

A large and heavy homemade outdoor bar unit was left at the premises along with other broken furniture and miscellaneous items which had to be removed from the property.

The premises include a large house with six bedrooms and six bathrooms and a garden area. The property was not cleaned, the lawns were not mowed, and the garden was not tidied at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support its claim for cleaning and gardening costs.

The carpets were stained, and pet odours were noticeable. Carpets throughout required professional cleaning.

The landlord provided further photographs to support its claim for curtain replacement (to the amount of the insurance excess, evidence of which was also provided). The curtains in at least three bedrooms were stained and damaged. The property was new at the beginning of the tenancy and the curtains were lined and of good quality.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

There was damage to two toilet roll holders, a toilet seat and a bedroom door. Associated plastering and painting was also required. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proved.

Has the tenant committed an unlawful act?

Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 30 July 2023 as required by the Tribunal order referred to above (4593238).

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy under section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Act.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The tenants remained in the property until 4 August 2023 and did not return possession to the landlord until that date. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) of the Act.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant had sufficient notice that the tenancy was coming to an end and should have made arrangements to move from the property on the required date.

The Tribunal was provided with copies of text messages which suggest that the tenants attempted to arrange a moving company but were not able to book a truck until some days after the end date. This seems negligent given the notice provided, but I cannot satisfy myself that the tenant turned their minds to the unlawful act and intentionally set out to commit it as required above.

I find that exemplary damages are not appropriate in these circumstances.

Nevertheless, the landlord was forced to reschedule work on the property and was delayed by five days in terms of the reletting process.

I have awarded compensation equating to five days rent (31 July to 4 August inclusive) to reflect the landlord’s inconvenience and financial loss. Filing fee

As Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4701398 — net $6,234.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4593238 dated 18/07/2023	$2,864.72		Previous order application 4593238 dated 18/07/2023
Carpet Cleaning: Stains and pet odours	$345.00		Carpet Cleaning: Stains and pet odours
Cleaning	$908.32		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,230.50		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$281.75		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Insurance excess	$550.00		Replace furnishings: Insurance excess
Repairs: Bathroom fixtures and door handle and	$299.00		Repairs: Bathroom fixtures and door handle and
associated plastering and painting	$664.30		associated plastering and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears		$930.00	Rent arrears
Total award	$7,164.03	$930.00
Net award	$6,234.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,234.03

Order

Kate Renee Ineson and Marlene Jerhammar must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin $6,234.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 18 July 2023 under application 4593238.

Reasons

Ms Ziolo and Mr Toa attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages for failing to vacate the premises at the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2023 pursuant to Tribunal order number 4593238 dated 18 July 2023. That order required the tenant to make a total payment to the landlord of $2,864.72. Since that order was made the tenant has paid $930.00 in reduction of the debt (leaving a balance owing of $1,934.72) which has been reflected in the table above. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant 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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
A large and heavy homemade outdoor bar unit was left at the premises along with other broken furniture and miscellaneous items which had to be removed from the property.
The premises include a large house with six bedrooms and six bathrooms and a garden area. The property was not cleaned, the lawns were not mowed, and the garden was not tidied at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support its claim for cleaning and gardening costs.
The carpets were stained, and pet odours were noticeable. Carpets throughout required professional cleaning.
The landlord provided further photographs to support its claim for curtain replacement (to the amount of the insurance excess, evidence of which was also provided). The curtains in at least three bedrooms were stained and damaged. The property was new at the beginning of the tenancy and the curtains were lined and of good quality.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
There was damage to two toilet roll holders, a toilet seat and a bedroom door. Associated plastering and painting was also required. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.

Has the tenant committed an unlawful act?

Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 30 July 2023 as required by the Tribunal order referred to above (4593238).
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy under section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenants remained in the property until 4 August 2023 and did not return possession to the landlord until that date. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) of the Act.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant had sufficient notice that the tenancy was coming to an end and should have made arrangements to move from the property on the required date.
The Tribunal was provided with copies of text messages which suggest that the tenants attempted to arrange a moving company but were not able to book a truck until some days after the end date. This seems negligent given the notice provided, but I cannot satisfy myself that the tenant turned their minds to the unlawful act and intentionally set out to commit it as required above.
I find that exemplary damages are not appropriate in these circumstances.
Nevertheless, the landlord was forced to reschedule work on the property and was delayed by five days in terms of the reletting process.
I have awarded compensation equating to five days rent (31 July to 4 August inclusive) to reflect the landlord’s inconvenience and financial loss. Filing fee
As Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701398 — Cleanliness at 15 Vitalia Crescent, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701398 — Cleanliness at 15 Vitalia Crescent, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the tenant committed an unlawful act?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the tenant committed an unlawful act?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions