What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4712275?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4712275?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712275?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9737237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4712275?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4712275?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712275?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9737237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Park Chester Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4712275 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Powley and Ms Whitehouse attended the hearing on the 8 December 2023 for the landlord. The tenant dd not attend.
The landlord is seeking termination under s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act for a breach that the tenant has failed to remedy.
On the 13 October 2023 the landlord issued two breach notices to the tenant for: a) A breach of the term in the tenancy agreement that the tenant was keeping a pet at the property (a kitten). b) A breach that the tenant was not keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and that the tenant was damaging the property.
The landlord reinspected the property n the 27 October, they say that the property was not clean and tidy, there was smoking inside and that they could not determine one way or the other if the kitten was still at the property.
In order to be successful for termination for remedial breaches the landlord must prove on the balance of probabilities: a) That there has been a breach, b) That a 14-day breach notice was given c) That the breach was not remedied within the 14 days; and d) That is fair and reasonable to terminate the tenancy because of the breach. The kitten/cat.
The tenancy agreement prohibits the tenant from keeping pets at the property. The tenant says she does not have a pet, but the landlord saw a post on a local face book page, where the tenant was looking for her lost kitten/cat. It is clear that the tenant had a kitten/cat, and that the landlord has issued a 14-day notice for the cat.
At the reinspection the landlord did not see a cat or evidence of the cat inside the home. There are photographs of a cat and a bowl outside the property, but the cat appears different to the one in the face book post, so I am not satisfied that it is the same cat or indeed even the tenant’s cat.
In those circumstances I consider that the breach has on the balance of probabilities been remedied. The condition of the property.
The landlord says that the tenant has not been keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and is causing damage to the property.
The landlord has made a previous application TT 4571817 against the tenant regarding some damage. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage at mediation and the damage was repaired or agreements were made about repair of the property. The landlord says that at the next inspection in October they noticed the house had gone ‘backwards in cleanliness and that further damage had occurred’ they issued a 14 days’ notice asking the tenant to remedy the items that it noted in the inspection report, and to stop smoking in the house.
When the landlord reinspected on the 27 October the following items not been remedied. a) Toilet roll holder off its hinges. b) A rust mark on a window sill c) A mark on the window sill where a salt lamp had been left d) A dent in the wall in a bedroom. e) Stickers attached to the wall and ceiling. f) Holes in the wall where items had been affixed.
In addition, the landlord says that the tenants are not keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord seeks termination on the basis that each time a property inspection is done there is fresh damage at the property and that the way that the tenant keeps the property is not reasonably clean and tidy which is leading to further damage.
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
Reasonable means what the average person would consider acceptable. It is not immaculate or hotel standard. It takes into account the number of occupants and the ages of the occupants (because for instance a house with 3 children under 5 is probably going to look a bit messier during the day than a house with a professional couple). It should recognise that tenants and their families are living in the property and that extensive cleaning, like that might be required at the end of the tenancy, would be burdensome to do every 1-3 months.
Damage is something that is more that fair wear and tear. Tenants are liable for damage that is more than fair wear and tear and causing carelessly or intentionally during the tenancy.
In amendments to the RTA that came into force in 2021, parliament legislated to allow tenants to make minor changes to the homes that made them move liveable, this included being able to hang pictures, baby proof and quakeproof rooms. The tenants are supposed to obtain permission from the landlord first, but the landlord cannot be unreasonable when withholding permission.
The speeches made in Parliament on the final reading of the amendment Act on 5 August 2020 make the purpose and intention of the legislation clear: Tenants should be able to feel at home in their rental property. To this end, the bill makes rental properties safer and more livable by setting out clear processes for tenants to make minor changes to their rental accommodation, such as earthquake-proofing or baby-proofing a property. Landlords will be able to set reasonable conditions when agreeing to these minor changes, and tenants must reverse them when they leave the tenancy.
The landlord is asking the tenant to remove items from walls and remedy that damage during the tenancy. Whilst the tenant has not asked the landlord for permission to do these things, and there is a possibility that they will cause damage, I do not think it would be reasonable on the landlord to say no to a request by the tenant to hang pictures.
However, the tenant should also be aware that at the end of the tenancy the tenant will be required to make good any damage.
Whilst there does appear to have been some minor damage caused, or likely to be caused by the fixing of stickers to the roof, or the toilet roll having come off his hinges, the damage to the paint work from the salt lamp and filling of holes in the walls from where items have been affixed, as the tenancy has not ended yet, then it is difficult to say that the tenant is in breach of their obligations. They may for instance live with the toilet roll holder off its hinges for the whole of the tenancy, but put it back at the end, therefore delivering up a property which is not damaged. This would be in keeping with the obligations in the RTA.
In any case, even if I did consider that the tenant was in breach of their obligations, the breaches are minor, capable of remedy before the end of the tenancy and not likely to give rise to further damage to the property. I do not consider that it is appropriate of equitable to terminate a tenancy in these circumstances and therefore I dismiss the landlord’s claim for termination.
I remind the tenant that they will be liable for any damage caused carelessly or intentionally at the end of the tenancy, and that they should take steps to ensure such damage does not occur.

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Powley and Ms Whitehouse attended the hearing on the 8 December 2023 for the landlord. The tenant dd not attend.
The landlord is seeking termination under s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act for a breach that the tenant has failed to remedy.
On the 13 October 2023 the landlord issued two breach notices to the tenant for: a) A breach of the term in the tenancy agreement that the tenant was keeping a pet at the property (a kitten). b) A breach that the tenant was not keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and that the tenant was damaging the property.
The landlord reinspected the property n the 27 October, they say that the property was not clean and tidy, there was smoking inside and that they could not determine one way or the other if the kitten was still at the property.
In order to be successful for termination for remedial breaches the landlord must prove on the balance of probabilities: a) That there has been a breach, b) That a 14-day breach notice was given c) That the breach was not remedied within the 14 days; and d) That is fair and reasonable to terminate the tenancy because of the breach. The kitten/cat.
The tenancy agreement prohibits the tenant from keeping pets at the property. The tenant says she does not have a pet, but the landlord saw a post on a local face book page, where the tenant was looking for her lost kitten/cat. It is clear that the tenant had a kitten/cat, and that the landlord has issued a 14-day notice for the cat.
At the reinspection the landlord did not see a cat or evidence of the cat inside the home. There are photographs of a cat and a bowl outside the property, but the cat appears different to the one in the face book post, so I am not satisfied that it is the same cat or indeed even the tenant’s cat.
In those circumstances I consider that the breach has on the balance of probabilities been remedied. The condition of the property.
The landlord says that the tenant has not been keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and is causing damage to the property.
The landlord has made a previous application TT 4571817 against the tenant regarding some damage. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage at mediation and the damage was repaired or agreements were made about repair of the property. The landlord says that at the next inspection in October they noticed the house had gone ‘backwards in cleanliness and that further damage had occurred’ they issued a 14 days’ notice asking the tenant to remedy the items that it noted in the inspection report, and to stop smoking in the house.
When the landlord reinspected on the 27 October the following items not been remedied. a) Toilet roll holder off its hinges. b) A rust mark on a window sill c) A mark on the window sill where a salt lamp had been left d) A dent in the wall in a bedroom. e) Stickers attached to the wall and ceiling. f) Holes in the wall where items had been affixed.
In addition, the landlord says that the tenants are not keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord seeks termination on the basis that each time a property inspection is done there is fresh damage at the property and that the way that the tenant keeps the property is not reasonably clean and tidy which is leading to further damage.
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
Reasonable means what the average person would consider acceptable. It is not immaculate or hotel standard. It takes into account the number of occupants and the ages of the occupants (because for instance a house with 3 children under 5 is probably going to look a bit messier during the day than a house with a professional couple). It should recognise that tenants and their families are living in the property and that extensive cleaning, like that might be required at the end of the tenancy, would be burdensome to do every 1-3 months.
Damage is something that is more that fair wear and tear. Tenants are liable for damage that is more than fair wear and tear and causing carelessly or intentionally during the tenancy.
In amendments to the RTA that came into force in 2021, parliament legislated to allow tenants to make minor changes to the homes that made them move liveable, this included being able to hang pictures, baby proof and quakeproof rooms. The tenants are supposed to obtain permission from the landlord first, but the landlord cannot be unreasonable when withholding permission.
The speeches made in Parliament on the final reading of the amendment Act on 5 August 2020 make the purpose and intention of the legislation clear: Tenants should be able to feel at home in their rental property. To this end, the bill makes rental properties safer and more livable by setting out clear processes for tenants to make minor changes to their rental accommodation, such as earthquake-proofing or baby-proofing a property. Landlords will be able to set reasonable conditions when agreeing to these minor changes, and tenants must reverse them when they leave the tenancy.
The landlord is asking the tenant to remove items from walls and remedy that damage during the tenancy. Whilst the tenant has not asked the landlord for permission to do these things, and there is a possibility that they will cause damage, I do not think it would be reasonable on the landlord to say no to a request by the tenant to hang pictures.
However, the tenant should also be aware that at the end of the tenancy the tenant will be required to make good any damage.
Whilst there does appear to have been some minor damage caused, or likely to be caused by the fixing of stickers to the roof, or the toilet roll having come off his hinges, the damage to the paint work from the salt lamp and filling of holes in the walls from where items have been affixed, as the tenancy has not ended yet, then it is difficult to say that the tenant is in breach of their obligations. They may for instance live with the toilet roll holder off its hinges for the whole of the tenancy, but put it back at the end, therefore delivering up a property which is not damaged. This would be in keeping with the obligations in the RTA.
In any case, even if I did consider that the tenant was in breach of their obligations, the breaches are minor, capable of remedy before the end of the tenancy and not likely to give rise to further damage to the property. I do not consider that it is appropriate of equitable to terminate a tenancy in these circumstances and therefore I dismiss the landlord’s claim for termination.
I remind the tenant that they will be liable for any damage caused carelessly or intentionally at the end of the tenancy, and that they should take steps to ensure such damage does not occur.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712275 — 14-day notice at 5 Park Chester Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712275 — 14-day notice at 5 Park Chester Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions