What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832298?

The tribunal order states: Carenza Barnes to pay Linden John Cooper and Maryann Joy Cooper as

How much money was awarded in case 4832298?

Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $88.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $125.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832298?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10389088-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832298?

The tribunal order states: Carenza Barnes to pay Linden John Cooper and Maryann Joy Cooper as

How much money was awarded in case 4832298?

Property Damage: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $88.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $125.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832298?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10389088-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Sharman Place, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4832298 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4832298 — net $143.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair to ceiling coving	$180.00		Repair to ceiling coving
Water rates (consent	$88.40		Water rates (consent
Agreed refund of water rates fixed charges		$125.00	Agreed refund of water rates fixed charges
Total award	$268.40	$125.00
Net award	$143.40
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$143.40

Order

Carenza Barnes to pay Linden John Cooper and Maryann Joy Cooper as Trustees of The LJ & MJ Cooper Trust No 2, $143.40 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (6223741-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Linden John Cooper and Maryann Joy Cooper as trustees of The LJ & MJ Cooper Trust No 2 : $143.40 Carenza Barnes: $2,236.60
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs and for the cost of the exterior washing of the house is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Barnes attended by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the refund of fixed water rates charges she paid and for compensation of $5,500.00 for stress and anxiety following flooding events that affected the exterior of the premises and for what she says was the general demanding nature of the landlord towards her. The landlord’s application Water rates
The landlord was unaware that it could not charge a tenant the fixed rate component of water rates. That is a landlord responsibility since the landlord must ensure the provision of potable water.
The parties agreed to a refund amount of $125.00. I have awarded that amount to the tenant by consent. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed other costs it is not entitled to. A tenant is not responsible for washing down the exterior of the premises, clearing gutters or cleaning the outside windows. Why is that? Because the condition of the outside of the dwelling including the windows and gutters is not the result of any breach by a tenant; it is due to the natural effects of the elements.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for the exterior cleaning of the premises.
A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, not clean to a ‘motel standard’ or to a standard where a new tenancy can immediately commence. Landlord’s must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The landlord advised the tenant: It is important for me as a Landlord that when a new tenant comes into the house that it is handed over to a high standard of cleanliness as it was when you took over the tenancy at the beginning.
If the landlord was imposing that standard on the tenant, they were incorrect to do so.
The tenant’s photos show that she left the premises reasonably clean. The landlord’s photos show that some cleaning was probably required.
The invoice for cleaning is for $465.75 – 2.25 hours at $207.00 per hour. The Tribunal would not reimburse cleaning costs at that high rate.
The landlord insisted that the tenant have the carpets professionally cleaned, which she did.
Allowing for the fact that the tenant did something she was not required to do (have the carpets professionally cleaned) I make no award of cleaning costs. Even if some cleaning was reasonably required, it was not much to reach the statutory test of ‘reasonably clean’ and the landlord has received the benefit of having the carpets professionally cleaned.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs. Repair of ceiling coving
The landlord has claimed the cost of repairing an area of ceiling coving where the tenant installed a ‘false’ wall’ as part of the beauty business she ran from the premises. The landlord said the damage was separate from other areas of wear and tear that were separately repaired but not charged to the tenant.
The tenant said the damage was there at the start. There is no proof of that. When damage occurs during a tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear (as this is) it is for the tenant to prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The tenant said she did not install the false wall; she had someone else install it.
I find that this damage probably occurred during the tenancy. It was careless damage for which the tenant is liable. The tenant’s application Water rates
As I have noted, the parties reached an agreement about the refund for water rates fixed charges. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenant’s compensation claim is for stress and anxiety following two major flooding events and for what the tenant considers was the general demanding nature of the landlord.
There has been no landlord breach that can result in compensation. The flooding events were beyond the landlord’s control. The water did not enter the house. The tenant was simply concerned that a retaining wall might give way. But it did not.
The landlord gave evidence that they took fast and appropriate action to have the premises and the exterior of the premises assessed for risk of subsidence. That included meeting with local authority staff and their builder.
That the tenant was concerned about what might happen cannot result in an award of compensation in the absence of a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
That the tenant perceived the landlord as demanding and unreasonable cannot attract compensation either. The Tribunal does not compensate for hurt feelings; there is no statutory basis for it to do so.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $125.00 as a refund of fixed water rates charges, by consent. The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord compensation for the repair cost of the ceiling coving. The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The bond will be split between the parties - $143.40 to the landlord and $2,236.60 to the tenant. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4832298 — net $143.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair to ceiling coving	$180.00		Repair to ceiling coving
Water rates (consent	$88.40		Water rates (consent
Agreed refund of water rates fixed charges		$125.00	Agreed refund of water rates fixed charges
Total award	$268.40	$125.00
Net award	$143.40
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$143.40

Order

Carenza Barnes to pay Linden John Cooper and Maryann Joy Cooper as Trustees of The LJ & MJ Cooper Trust No 2, $143.40 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (6223741-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Linden John Cooper and Maryann Joy Cooper as trustees of The LJ & MJ Cooper Trust No 2 : $143.40 Carenza Barnes: $2,236.60
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs and for the cost of the exterior washing of the house is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Barnes attended by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the refund of fixed water rates charges she paid and for compensation of $5,500.00 for stress and anxiety following flooding events that affected the exterior of the premises and for what she says was the general demanding nature of the landlord towards her. The landlord’s application Water rates
The landlord was unaware that it could not charge a tenant the fixed rate component of water rates. That is a landlord responsibility since the landlord must ensure the provision of potable water.
The parties agreed to a refund amount of $125.00. I have awarded that amount to the tenant by consent. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed other costs it is not entitled to. A tenant is not responsible for washing down the exterior of the premises, clearing gutters or cleaning the outside windows. Why is that? Because the condition of the outside of the dwelling including the windows and gutters is not the result of any breach by a tenant; it is due to the natural effects of the elements.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for the exterior cleaning of the premises.
A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, not clean to a ‘motel standard’ or to a standard where a new tenancy can immediately commence. Landlord’s must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The landlord advised the tenant: It is important for me as a Landlord that when a new tenant comes into the house that it is handed over to a high standard of cleanliness as it was when you took over the tenancy at the beginning.
If the landlord was imposing that standard on the tenant, they were incorrect to do so.
The tenant’s photos show that she left the premises reasonably clean. The landlord’s photos show that some cleaning was probably required.
The invoice for cleaning is for $465.75 – 2.25 hours at $207.00 per hour. The Tribunal would not reimburse cleaning costs at that high rate.
The landlord insisted that the tenant have the carpets professionally cleaned, which she did.
Allowing for the fact that the tenant did something she was not required to do (have the carpets professionally cleaned) I make no award of cleaning costs. Even if some cleaning was reasonably required, it was not much to reach the statutory test of ‘reasonably clean’ and the landlord has received the benefit of having the carpets professionally cleaned.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs. Repair of ceiling coving
The landlord has claimed the cost of repairing an area of ceiling coving where the tenant installed a ‘false’ wall’ as part of the beauty business she ran from the premises. The landlord said the damage was separate from other areas of wear and tear that were separately repaired but not charged to the tenant.
The tenant said the damage was there at the start. There is no proof of that. When damage occurs during a tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear (as this is) it is for the tenant to prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The tenant said she did not install the false wall; she had someone else install it.
I find that this damage probably occurred during the tenancy. It was careless damage for which the tenant is liable. The tenant’s application Water rates
As I have noted, the parties reached an agreement about the refund for water rates fixed charges. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenant’s compensation claim is for stress and anxiety following two major flooding events and for what the tenant considers was the general demanding nature of the landlord.
There has been no landlord breach that can result in compensation. The flooding events were beyond the landlord’s control. The water did not enter the house. The tenant was simply concerned that a retaining wall might give way. But it did not.
The landlord gave evidence that they took fast and appropriate action to have the premises and the exterior of the premises assessed for risk of subsidence. That included meeting with local authority staff and their builder.
That the tenant was concerned about what might happen cannot result in an award of compensation in the absence of a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
That the tenant perceived the landlord as demanding and unreasonable cannot attract compensation either. The Tribunal does not compensate for hurt feelings; there is no statutory basis for it to do so.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $125.00 as a refund of fixed water rates charges, by consent. The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord compensation for the repair cost of the ceiling coving. The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The bond will be split between the parties - $143.40 to the landlord and $2,236.60 to the tenant. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832298 — Property damage at 3 Sharman Place, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832298 — Property damage at 3 Sharman Place, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions