What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4782957?

The tribunal order states: City Space Realty Limited As Agent For Shan Zhong must pay Peck Hoon Tan

How much money was awarded in case 4782957?

28 Aug: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Fallen Tree Removal: $138.75 awarded to tenant; (Kitchen cabinetry above fridge rest…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Waterblast Path And Area Around Back…: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782957?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10384342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4782957?

The tribunal order states: City Space Realty Limited As Agent For Shan Zhong must pay Peck Hoon Tan

How much money was awarded in case 4782957?

28 Aug: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Fallen Tree Removal: $138.75 awarded to tenant; (Kitchen cabinetry above fridge rest…: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Waterblast Path And Area Around Back…: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782957?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10384342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Everard Avenue, Army Bay, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782957 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782957 — net $63.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: (Toilet repairs post removal of leaking sprayer	$100.00		Repairs: (Toilet repairs post removal of leaking sprayer
Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry above fridge restored	$100.00		Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry above fridge restored
Cleaning	$225.00		Cleaning
Waterblast path and area around backdoor	$150.00		Waterblast path and area around backdoor
Compensation: Fallen tree removal		$138.75	Fallen tree removal
28 Aug to 3 Oct 2023 for loss of amenity in kitchen		$500.00	28 Aug to 3 Oct 2023 for loss of amenity in kitchen
Total award	$575.00	$638.75
Net award		$63.75
Bond		$2,780.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$63.75

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants made a counterclaim for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. A. LANDLORD CLAIMS

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, 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that there were areas of the house and yard that should have been cleaned by the tenants that were not, such as: a. Areas of the kitchen cupboards that were not clean inside and water stain and other stains were evident in the exit inspection photos; b. Mould and dirt in the shower, around the base of the toilet and dirt/hair on the back of the toilet behind the seat; c. Oil on rangehood and stove and kitchen cabinetry; d. Dust on skirting boards; e. Dirt on light switches and power switches; f. Garage not swept and floor covered in dirt and some light rubbish items left behind; g. The garden requiring weeding and lawn clipping needing to be picked up and disposed of as well as green waste to dispose of.

The tenants provided evidence that they had fully cleaned the premises and mowed the lawns and stated that the grounds of the property were not in a clean and tidy state when the tenancy commenced. They provided email evidence of raising this with the landlord 2 months after the tenancy commenced and evidence that they had paid $200.00 to get the lawns mowed and the garden cleared. Therefore, I have dismissed the landlord’s claim for $500.00 for mowing the lawn, weeding, and removing green waste.

There were no entry inspection photographs produced, only an entry inspection report and the tenants proved by photographic evidence that they had generally cleaned the house to a reasonable standard and stated some areas of the house were not in a clean and tidy state at the beginning of the tenancy. There were some areas of the bathroom and kitchen cabinetry as well as the rangehood and stove that could have been cleaned more thoroughly to be considered to be in a reasonably clean and tidy state.

A reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. A landlord will always be left undertaking certain amounts of cleaning to get a property to a lettable standard after a tenant has ended a tenancy, even when the tenant has left the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state.

I have granted the landlord half of the amount of the cleaning costs claimed as I have dismissed the remainder of the landlord’s cleaning claims as dust and dirt on skirting boards and light switches and mould in grouting and in silicon is not the tenant’s responsibility to remove. These cleaning claims were trivial in nature. “Reasonably” clean means clean to a standard an average by stander would consider reasonable, not commercially clean, spotless, hotel or motel standard. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by both parties that the tenant left the house in a reasonably clean and tidy state, but for the areas mentioned in paragraph [7] above.

I am also satisfied that the tenants are liable for the costs of water blasting the backdoor area and path where there was extensive dirt and debris gathered, most of which could have been swept away and disposed of by the tenants, but they did not do this.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The cupboard above the fridge was altered by the tenants and not put back to the original condition at the end of the tenancy; and b. The landlord had to remove a leaking sprayer and reconnect the toilet.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

There was considerable discussion about, and evidence produced by both parties about the electrical wiring issues with the property. I am satisfied that the property had old wiring and that there were electrical issues with power outlets and the switch board being tripped because of faulty wiring. The landlord has the issues investigated by an electrician and tried to pass on the costs to the tenants.

The tenants acted on a reasonable belief the wiring in the kitchen was faulty when they asked the landlord to get an electrician to investigate and remediate the electrical issues. They also acted on advice from an electrician when they issued a 14-day notice to the landlord on 2 October 2023 stating the wiring was dangerous and needed to be addressed further as the work to date that had been completed was insufficient to remedy the issues the tenants had been facing since 28 August 2023. It is not the responsibility of the tenants to pay for investigative or repair work on the premises. I am not satisfied that the issues with the electrical componentry was solely because of the tenants having 2 additional fridges in their lounge. The power outlets should have been able to power those two appliances, but for the faulty wiring. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s two claims for compensation for the electrical work undertaken at the property on 3 and 30 September 2023. B. TENANTS’ CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, which states the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .

Breaching the landlords s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.

The tenants claim the landlord has failed to: a. Remedy the electrical issues in the house which led to them suffering stress and inconvenience because the electrical power points in the kitchen arched and sparked and tripped the fuse board. These issues were investigated but not fully remedied by the landlord which resulted in the tenants issuing a 14-day notice on 2 October 2023 and ultimately moving out of the house as they had been given advice by an electrician that the wiring was unsafe and could cause a fire; b. Remove a tree that fell down on 3 January 2023 between that date and the end of the tenancy on 22 November 2023; and c. Fix a splash back tile in the kitchen. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].

I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the landlord failed to remove the tree and that the tenants incurred the costs of having to do so.

I am not satisfied, based on the evidence provided that the tenants incurred any costs for fixing a splash back tile. I note that the landlord should not have asked the tenants to undertake this repair.

I am satisfied there were extensive electrical issues with the wiring and power outlets that were patched by an electrician but never fully repaired and that the extensions of the circuits to other circuits in the house did not fully remedy the issue. I do not accept the tenants caused the electrical issues with the appliance they had in the house.

I have compensated the tenants for the cost of removal of the tree, which they have proven with invoices.

I also order the landlord to provide the tenants with a $100.00 per week rent rebate, being a deduction of ($500.00 total) for the 5-week period 28 August 2023 to 3 October 2023 for the loss of the amenity of their kitchen power outlets and the stress of living with faulty wiring and the risk of fire. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims, I dismiss both applications for the reimbursement of the filing fees as they cancel each other out. These costs lie where they fall.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782957 — net $63.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: (Toilet repairs post removal of leaking sprayer	$100.00		Repairs: (Toilet repairs post removal of leaking sprayer
Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry above fridge restored	$100.00		Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry above fridge restored
Cleaning	$225.00		Cleaning
Waterblast path and area around backdoor	$150.00		Waterblast path and area around backdoor
Compensation: Fallen tree removal		$138.75	Fallen tree removal
28 Aug to 3 Oct 2023 for loss of amenity in kitchen		$500.00	28 Aug to 3 Oct 2023 for loss of amenity in kitchen
Total award	$575.00	$638.75
Net award		$63.75
Bond		$2,780.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$63.75

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants made a counterclaim for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. A. LANDLORD CLAIMS

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, which states the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.

I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the landlord failed to remove the tree and that the tenants incurred the costs of having to do so.

I have compensated the tenants for the cost of removal of the tree, which they have proven with invoices.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782957 — Cleanliness at 46 Everard Avenue, Army Bay, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782957 — Cleanliness at 46 Everard Avenue, Army Bay, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions