What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4845280?

The tribunal order states: Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property

How much money was awarded in case 4845280?

1. Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisab…: $358.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845280?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790337-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4845280?

The tribunal order states: Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property

How much money was awarded in case 4845280?

1. Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisab…: $358.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845280?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790337-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1102, 13 College Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4845280 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Cha	$358.80		1. Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Cha
Bond	$4,200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Cha	$358.80		1. Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Cha
Bond	$4,200.00

Order

Tuku Kururangi, Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Chapman $358.80 from the bond for cleaning costs.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 (5920647-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Chapman: $358.80 Tuku Kururangi and Anna Sofia Elisabet Vibrandt: $3,841.20
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Depczynski represented the landlord.
Both parties have brought claims against the other with respect to this 13-month tenancy that ended in February 2024. The landlord claims compensation for cleaning and Mr Kururangi seeks compensation and exemplary damages for a lack of amenity and unlawful entry.
I discuss each claim separately below, however before doing so, I note that in the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege.

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 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In assessing both parties’ evidence on this claim, I have not placed any weight on the alleged comments made by Mr Kururangi’s colleague as they are hearsay and ostensibly conflicting between what she told each party. What I accept as clear evidence is the photos.
Ms Depczynski has filed a detailed work order that was provided to the cleaners noting all that needed to be done. The issues are relatively minor, however there are a number. She was clear as to what was a landlord responsibility and what was a tenant’s, and advises that the owner attended to the issues that were over and above what she assessed as the tenants’ responsibility. She did give Mr Kururangi’s associates the option to do the clean themselves, but they did not.
Mr Kururangi believes he did leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way after his remaining items had been collected. In the alternative he submits that the cost incurred is disproportionate to the work that was required.
I have carefully considered the evidence provided and am satisfied that the property was not returned at the end of the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy way. Further wiping and vacuuming was required. It was very close but did not meet the statutory standard. I accept the tenants were in a rush to vacate as they were leaving the country at the time, therefore the oversights are understandable.
As the tenants were provided the opportunity (through associates as they were overseas) to rectify the issues themselves, but chose not to, the landlord was entitled to use their own contractors. I accept the evidence that an additional clean was undertaken after the contracted clean which is appropriate as a tenant is not expected to leave a property to a standard that it can immediately be re-rented.
Accordingly, the amount ordered is proven in evidence and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant entitled to a rent rebate?

A carpark was provided as part of this tenancy. Unfortunately, just prior to the commencement of the tenancy another occupant of the building drove into the garage door rendering it unusable. Mr Kururangi therefore could not access his carpark until 8 February, almost three weeks into his tenancy.
He was advised at the time to submit his additional parking costs to the landlord who would forward to the Body Corporate for reimbursement. Mr Kururangi did not and claims compensation now to the equivalent of such costs for the inconvenience and lack of amenity. He is of the view that he was paying for the convenience of having an onsite carpark; an amenity he was not receiving.
Ms Depczynski agrees that this was an inconvenience and is prepared submit a claim to the Body Corporate for reimbursement however is unsure whether they would pay it given the lapse of time.
This premise is of a high quality and as such a high rental is paid. The car park is a significant factor of the tenancy. It was appropriate that any additional costs incurred by tenants to park their cars during this time be reimbursed by the landlord (via the Body Corporate). Mr Kururangi was entitled to avail of this at the time but chose not to, he also accepts he does not have proof of the costs he incurred.
This was also a lack of amenity and as such I agree that Mr Kururangi should not have been required to pay his full rental for the period he was not able to access the carpark.
However, I consider that I am prevented from upholding a claim for compensation at this time due to the principle of estoppel. Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts a previous action or agreement. In short, if a person accepts a state or does not challenge it within a reasonable period, they can be estopped from enforcing it at a later date without good reason.
The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts (see s 78(1)(h) RTA). This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel. Such a claim has the following factors: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Mr Kururangi did not claim a rent rebate when this occurred and did not claim reimbursement for his costs. He was at the time attempting to commence the tenancy in a positive and collaborative way however has chosen to the bring the claim now in response to the Body Corporate’s actions as a whole.
Whilst I agree that Mr Kururangi did not have full amenity for the relevant weeks, I consider that it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on his inaction at the time as acceptance of the situation. I am satisfied that had he raised it when it occurred, they would have provided reasonable compensation to reflect his loss. Given the lapse of time however they may well not be able to recoup this from the Body Corporate and the landlord would not have factored such a cost into their budget. Accordingly, I do not find it just to award compensation now and the claim must be dismissed. Did the landlord enter the premise without consent and/or breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
It is not disputed that on 28 January 2023, just days into the tenancy, Mr Kururangi returned home to find that his spare bedroom had been flooded and contractors had entered the home, lifted the carpet and installed drying equipment. He immediately contacted Ms Depczynski who spoke to APL Property Management the Administrative Body Corporate Management firm. She asked APL to ensure that their contractors always contact her in the event they needed to access the premise.
Unfortunately, they did not and again when Mr Kururangi was out the contractors let themselves into the property and removed their belongings but did not re-lay the carpet. Again, Mr Kururangi contacted Ms Depczynski who again spoke to ARL. Mr Kururangi also spoke with ARL himself.
Despite this the contractors again entered the property on 1 February to re-lay the carpet without providing notice. These events left Mr Kururangi feeling violated and disgusted at ARL’s actions. He installed a security camera and consulted lawyers regarding the Body Corporate’s liability.
His lawyer correctly advised him that he could not bring a claim against the Body Corporate but could against his landlord. He therefore brings it now in combination with his response to the landlord’s claims. The law & discussion
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. 24 hours’ notice is required to be given for an entrance to undertake maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation intentionally is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
A tenant may not apply for exemplary damages for an unlawful act 12 months after the commission of the act. 1 These incidents occurred in January and February 2023, and Mr Kururangi filed his application in March 2024. Accordingly, his claim for exemplary damages for these breaches 2 must be dismissed. 1 Pursuant to section 109(2)(b) RTA 2 Being his only claim in this respect
Although I cannot make the monetary orders sought, I do make the following findings: a. The entrance on 28 January did not require notice as it was an emergency. 3 It would have however been best practice to advise Mr Kururangi, particularly given he was not even aware his apartment had flooded. b. The entrance on 30 January and 1 February were breaches of section 48(2)(d) of the RTA by the contractors instructed by ARL. c. Ms Depczynski did all she could to prevent these breaches but nonetheless they did occur. I cannot fault her actions in this regard. d. Not only were the entrances unlawful but also a breach of section 38 RTA being a breach of the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.
Even had I not been prevented from awarding exemplary damages by section 109(2)(b) of the RTA, I do not consider the landlord acted intentionally as Ms Depczynski did all she could to prevent the actions. Pursuant to section 109(3) of the RTA, exemplary damages cannot be awarded where an unlawful act is found not to have been committed intentionally.
These were unlawful acts that should not have happened. The fault lies with ARL and/or their contractors although pursuant to the definition of agent as found in section 2 of the RTA, the landlord remains liable for the acts. Monetary awards are not however available as sought pursuant to section 109 of the RTA. Accordingly the claim is dismissed. Should the filing fee be awarded
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications and were put to the cost of filing them, it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845280 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1102, 13 College Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845280 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1102, 13 College Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant entitled to a rent rebate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant entitled to a rent rebate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions