What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878321?

The tribunal order states: Damanpreet Kaur, Sandeep Singh and Manpreet Randhawa must pay Najib

How much money was awarded in case 4878321?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,627.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878321?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10500867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878321?

The tribunal order states: Damanpreet Kaur, Sandeep Singh and Manpreet Randhawa must pay Najib

How much money was awarded in case 4878321?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,627.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878321?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10500867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18A Date Crescent, Aidanfield, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878321 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878321 — net $668.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 May 2024	$2,627.86	Rent arrears to 14 May 2024
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$668.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$668.30

Order

Damanpreet Kaur, Sandeep Singh and Manpreet Randhawa must pay Najib Property Management Limited and Scott Sutherland $668.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 () to Najib Property Management Limited as agent for Scott Sutherland immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gin represented the landlord.
The landlord applied for rent arrears until the end of the fixed term tenancy ($2,627.86), and costs to clean the premises and tidy the gardens ($540.00). The tenants also filed an application. Their application seeks an order releasing them from the fixed term tenancy early. However, Mr Singh and Mr Randhawa (who represented the tenants) confirmed that their claim was essentially a defence to the claim for rent. They claim that they should not be liable for rent after they vacated the premises on 27 April because the landlord did not do enough to find another tenant. They also dispute the claim for cleaning and tidying the gardens.

Should the tenants be liable for the rent claimed?

The tenants had a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 14 November 2022 and ending on 14 May 2024. The tenants purchased a house and, on or about 16 February 2024, asked the landlord if they could be released from the tenancy early. They said that they intended to vacate the premises on 10 March 2024. On 22 February, the landlord agreed provided the tenants pay the costs to find a new tenant (administration and advertising costs) and provided they continue to pay rent until a new tenant was found. The tenants agreed to the terms and the landlord advertised the tenancy on Trademe over the following three or so weeks. Ms Gin said that she held five viewings with prospective tenants over that time but no suitable tenant was found. The landlord then decided to not continue the advertising of the premises until after the tenants had moved out because of the condition of the property (dirty nappies were apparently found in the garden during a viewing). The tenants extended the vacate date to 5 April because their house was not ready to move into. They subsequently extended it further until 27 April.
I find the tenants liable for the rent claimed.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. A tenant who leaves a fixed term tenancy before its expiry is liable to pay rent until the end of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found, whichever is the earlier: section 61(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). There is no obligation on a landlord to take steps to mitigate a tenant’s loss when he or she leaves a fixed term tenancy before its expiry: section 64(4) of the Act. Thus, the landlord can simply sit back and do nothing to find a new tenant and claim rent from the tenant until the fixed term ends (although most landlords, sensibly, do take steps to find a new tenant as quickly as possible to assist a departing tenant or to minimise their loss).
I accept that the parties agreed that the landlord would advertise the tenancy and try to find another tenant to take over the tenancy before its expiry. However, I also do not consider that they were in breach of that agreement. They did advertise the tenancy and tried to find another tenant, but the attempts were unsuccessful. They did not refuse to advertise it further before the expiry of the term. It was simply suspended until after the tenants vacated for the reasons given above. I consider that a reasonable decision particularly because the tenants had said that they would be vacating soon after the advertising of the premises ceased.
The tenants also claim that a friend had agreed to take over the tenancy and the friend phoned the property manager to make arrangements to do so but was told that the landlord wanted to complete renovation work before getting a new tenant. Ms Gin said that she did not receive a call from the friend and is not aware of any of her colleagues receiving such a call.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to support their belief that the friend did phone the property manager as claimed. In particular, there was no evidence directly from the friend who was said to have called or the date the call was claimed to have occurred.

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenants did not leave some areas of the premises reasonably clean and areas of the gardens reasonably tidy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
However, the list of cleaning required by the landlord (and presumably completed by the cleaning company) is in my view expecting the premises to be cleaned to a standard that is beyond reasonably clean. For example the list includes the requirement to remove cobwebs, including from the clothesline and outside heat pump unit, sweeping the garage floor, removing dust from window tracks (visible when the window is open), removing dust from the garage door, and cleaning ceilings. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed for cleaning and tidying the gardens.
The landlord has been mostly successful in their claims and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the tenants have been wholly unsuccessful in their claim and mostly unsuccessful in their defence to the landlord’s claim. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878321 — net $668.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 May 2024	$2,627.86	Rent arrears to 14 May 2024
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$668.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$668.30

Order

Damanpreet Kaur, Sandeep Singh and Manpreet Randhawa must pay Najib Property Management Limited and Scott Sutherland $668.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 () to Najib Property Management Limited as agent for Scott Sutherland immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gin represented the landlord.
The landlord applied for rent arrears until the end of the fixed term tenancy ($2,627.86), and costs to clean the premises and tidy the gardens ($540.00). The tenants also filed an application. Their application seeks an order releasing them from the fixed term tenancy early. However, Mr Singh and Mr Randhawa (who represented the tenants) confirmed that their claim was essentially a defence to the claim for rent. They claim that they should not be liable for rent after they vacated the premises on 27 April because the landlord did not do enough to find another tenant. They also dispute the claim for cleaning and tidying the gardens.

Should the tenants be liable for the rent claimed?

The tenants had a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 14 November 2022 and ending on 14 May 2024. The tenants purchased a house and, on or about 16 February 2024, asked the landlord if they could be released from the tenancy early. They said that they intended to vacate the premises on 10 March 2024. On 22 February, the landlord agreed provided the tenants pay the costs to find a new tenant (administration and advertising costs) and provided they continue to pay rent until a new tenant was found. The tenants agreed to the terms and the landlord advertised the tenancy on Trademe over the following three or so weeks. Ms Gin said that she held five viewings with prospective tenants over that time but no suitable tenant was found. The landlord then decided to not continue the advertising of the premises until after the tenants had moved out because of the condition of the property (dirty nappies were apparently found in the garden during a viewing). The tenants extended the vacate date to 5 April because their house was not ready to move into. They subsequently extended it further until 27 April.
I find the tenants liable for the rent claimed.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. A tenant who leaves a fixed term tenancy before its expiry is liable to pay rent until the end of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found, whichever is the earlier: section 61(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). There is no obligation on a landlord to take steps to mitigate a tenant’s loss when he or she leaves a fixed term tenancy before its expiry: section 64(4) of the Act. Thus, the landlord can simply sit back and do nothing to find a new tenant and claim rent from the tenant until the fixed term ends (although most landlords, sensibly, do take steps to find a new tenant as quickly as possible to assist a departing tenant or to minimise their loss).
I accept that the parties agreed that the landlord would advertise the tenancy and try to find another tenant to take over the tenancy before its expiry. However, I also do not consider that they were in breach of that agreement. They did advertise the tenancy and tried to find another tenant, but the attempts were unsuccessful. They did not refuse to advertise it further before the expiry of the term. It was simply suspended until after the tenants vacated for the reasons given above. I consider that a reasonable decision particularly because the tenants had said that they would be vacating soon after the advertising of the premises ceased.
The tenants also claim that a friend had agreed to take over the tenancy and the friend phoned the property manager to make arrangements to do so but was told that the landlord wanted to complete renovation work before getting a new tenant. Ms Gin said that she did not receive a call from the friend and is not aware of any of her colleagues receiving such a call.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to support their belief that the friend did phone the property manager as claimed. In particular, there was no evidence directly from the friend who was said to have called or the date the call was claimed to have occurred.

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenants did not leave some areas of the premises reasonably clean and areas of the gardens reasonably tidy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
However, the list of cleaning required by the landlord (and presumably completed by the cleaning company) is in my view expecting the premises to be cleaned to a standard that is beyond reasonably clean. For example the list includes the requirement to remove cobwebs, including from the clothesline and outside heat pump unit, sweeping the garage floor, removing dust from window tracks (visible when the window is open), removing dust from the garage door, and cleaning ceilings. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed for cleaning and tidying the gardens.
The landlord has been mostly successful in their claims and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the tenants have been wholly unsuccessful in their claim and mostly unsuccessful in their defence to the landlord’s claim. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878321 — Rent arrears at 18A Date Crescent, Aidanfield, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878321 — Rent arrears at 18A Date Crescent, Aidanfield, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be liable for the rent claimed?

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be liable for the rent claimed?

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions