How much money was awarded in case 4878460?

Cleaning: $965.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of enjoyment due…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Electrical Work: $541.78 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fill Hole And Relay Cobbles At Side…: $883.20 awarded to landlord; Fill Holes At Entrance Door (Consent: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Locksmith Fee (Consent: $281.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,362.41 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878460?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878460?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10572860-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4878460?

Cleaning: $965.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of enjoyment due…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Electrical Work: $541.78 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fill Hole And Relay Cobbles At Side…: $883.20 awarded to landlord; Fill Holes At Entrance Door (Consent: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Locksmith Fee (Consent: $281.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,362.41 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878460?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878460?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10572860-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17A Brodie Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878460 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878460?

The tribunal order states: Grace Josephine Johnston and Aaron Michael Payne must pay Whittle Knight &

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878460 — net $3,069.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee on warrant for eviction	$200.00		Filing fee on warrant for eviction
Locksmith fee (consent	$281.96		Locksmith fee (consent
Electrical work	$541.78		Electrical work
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$965.00		Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal (consent	$1,362.41		Rubbish removal (consent
Replace and rehang damaged doors (compensation	$400.00		Replace and rehang damaged doors (compensation
Fill hole and relay cobbles at side of house (consent	$883.20		Fill hole and relay cobbles at side of house (consent
Fill holes at entrance door (consent	$74.75		Fill holes at entrance door (consent
Remove gates and posts and dump (compensation	$200.00		Remove gates and posts and dump (compensation
Exemplary damages for smoke alarm removal	$800.00		Exemplary damages for smoke alarm removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of enjoyment due to ceiling leak		$500.00	loss of enjoyment due to ceiling leak
Total award	$5,729.54	$500.00
Net award	$3,069.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,069.54

Grace Josephine Johnston and Aaron Michael Payne must pay Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited as agent for Nattachai Changrattanachaichok $3,069.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6416530-007) to Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited as agent for Nattachai Changrattanachaichok immediately.

The landlord’s application for the insurance excess for replacing carpet in bedroom 2 is dismissed.

The tenants’ applications for compensation for high electricity costs, reimbursement of an electrician’s invoice, and a refund of rent are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Heywood and Ms Ellis represented the landlord.

I first began hearing the applications on 22 May 2024. I adjourned the hearing so the tenants could provide further documentary evidence and for each party to arrange for their witnesses to attend and give evidence.

The tenants provided further evidence within the time frame I set.

Full disclosure of the landlord’s evidence was made at that hearing.

I have considered all of the evidence, documentary and oral, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background

The tenancy started on 23 June 2021. It was initially managed by another property management company as the landlord. Whittle Knight and Boatwood (WKB) took over management of the tenancy on 1 July 2022.

Rent was paid under the former landlord until 7 July 2022, so the tenants’ first payment of rent to this landlord was for the period starting 8 July 2022.

The tenancy did not end well. The landlord terminated the tenancy because the owner of the premises wanted to sell the property. The tenants challenged that, claiming the termination was retaliatory for actions they took concerning their power accounts.

The tenants’ application for a declaration that the termination notice was retaliatory was not successful. The landlord had to apply for a warrant for possession. The tenants were evicted on 2 April 2024.

Shortly before the eviction, the tenants lodged their application. The landlord then filed a cross application. The tenants’ application

The tenants seek: •Compensation of $5,838.00 for excess power accounts which they say were the result of some fault with the electrical supply and or usage at the premises •A refund of an invoice for the electrician they engaged to investigate the power usage issue •The repayment of 1 week’s rent ($580.00) which they say they over-paid •Compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to a ceiling leak.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage and cleaning costs, the filing fee on the warrant of eviction, locksmith costs, rubbish removal, and exemplary damages for the tenants interfering with a means of escape from fire by removing smoke alarms. Claims accepted by the tenants

The tenants accepted the landlord’s claims for the cost of a locksmith, rubbish removal, filling a hole by the entrance door, and filling an area beside the house and relaying the cobbles there. I have allowed those claims by consent. Relevant legal principles 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 take into account 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. Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest. Tenant responsibilities at the end of a 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) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Responsibility for damage

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 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 tenants’ claims Compensation for excess power accounts

The tenants seek compensation of $5,838.00 for what they say were excess electricity costs due to some fault or other usage.

I adjourned the hearing so the parties could bring witness evidence. The landlord led evidence from their contracted electrician Mr Bickerton a licensed electrician with about 8 years’ experience.

Mr Bickerton said he agreed that the tenants’ power accounts seemed high, but he said all the checks he did not show any reason for the high power usage. He was unable to provide any explanation for the high power consumption.

The tenants provided a report from a person they described as their electrician, a person trading as Burnside Electrical. That person did not attend the hearing and give evidence.

The landlord’s representative said the invoice had no name or contact details other than an address. She said she went to the address and the person who answered was a Kāinga Ora tenant in his late 70s who said he visited the property but had not been paid for any work he carried out. He wondered whether she was there as part of a ‘Fair Go’ investigation.

The tenants gave evidence that they had raised a dispute with their power supplier, the lines company, the City Council, and the Utilities Dispute Resolution Service, all to no avail.

I do not accept the report from the tenants’ ‘electrician’ as evidence of any fault attributable to the landlord. The landlord’s witness, whose evidence the Tribunal accepts, is that no cause for the unusually higher power usage could be identified.

The tenants have not established any breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. The cause of the power usage issue remains unknown.

I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. The electrician’s invoice

I dismiss this claim. The invoice, if it has been paid, was for the purpose of gathering evidence for the Tribunal. Each party bears the cost of producing their evidence. And given my finding that the cause of the high electricity use remains unknown, this claim cannot succeed. Rent refund

The landlord produced rent records which record the payments of rent by the tenants, the periods the payments relate to, and include the first rent period under their management when the tenants rent for the first week was accounted for upon the transfer to the new landlord.

Ms Heywood explained that rent was paid on a retrospective basis, not in advance.

The tenants said the rent records were confusing and they did not accept the accuracy of the rent summary.

The tenants did not produce a running statement of rent payments. I find that the landlord’s rent record is accurate and reliable. I do not find that the tenants paid 1 week’s rent that has not been accounted for.

I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a rent refund. Compensation for the loss of enjoyment

The tenants gave evidence that there was leaking in the ceiling in the lounge that became quite significant and prevented them from using that room.

The landlord produced a timeline together with photos and inspection reports and emails from the tenants that are completely at odds with the tenants’ description of what happened and when.

I find that the landlord took all reasonable steps to have repairs completed. I do not accept on the evidence produced that the tenants could not use the lounge room.

The tenants would have suffered some minor loss of enjoyment of the tenancy as a result of the leaking through the ceiling (an extreme example of which was shown in a video produced in evidence). However, any compensation must be, and is, limited. I award the tenants compensation of $500.00 for their loss of enjoyment due to the ceiling leaks and disruption caused by the repair work. The landlord’s claims for damage and other costs

As I have noted the tenants accepted the landlord’s claims for the cost of a locksmith, rubbish removal, filling a hole by the entrance door, and filling an area beside the house and relaying the cobbles there. Filing fee on warrant for eviction

I allow the landlord’s claim for the filing fee paid on the warrant for eviction. There is no other recovery mechanism for the landlord to claim this cost. Electrical work

The tenants accepted that they left cameras in place that would have had to be removed. They denied responsibility for the other electrical repairs listed in the electrician’s invoice.

The landlord’s evidence in support of this claim also included photos of what work was required.

On the balance of probabilities, I find that the work listed in the invoice, supported by the photographic evidence, was to remedy matters for which the tenants were responsible.

While I accept the tenants’ evidence that the alarm was not functioning and never worked, the electrical work was not to commission the alarm, but to repair and make safe the panel that had been removed exposing a wire. I find this claim proved. Cleaning and carpet cleaning

The tenants said they left the premises no worse than when they moved in. However, that is not the statutory test. Their responsibility was to leave the premises reasonably clean.

I have compared the photos from the entry condition report dated 27 May 2021 and the photos taken at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord’s evidence proves the claim for cleaning and carpet cleaning. The tenants did not meet their statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy when they vacated. Repairs

The landlord’s evidence (photos and invoices) proves the repair claims for the replacement of 2 doors and the removal of gates installed by the tenants but not removed by them.

I have awarded compensation only of $400.00 for the replacement of the doors. The evidence produced was just an estimate. The work has not been done. And the premises are now under a conditional contract for sale. Also, depreciation and fair wear and tear must be taken into account.

Similarly, I have awarded compensation only of $200.00 for the removal and dumping of the gates. Although the tenants said this was a ‘2-second job’, the posts have to be removed as well and the gates and posts dumped. But because the work has not been done (so the actual cost is unknown) I have awarded compensation only, not the estimated cost.

I dismiss the claim for the replacement of carpet in bedroom 2. The tenants said the former property manager’s contractor removed the section of carpet to do repairs and it was never replaced.

The landlord did not undertake an inspection when they assumed management of the tenancy (and therefore became the landlord). While they did not notice the missing area of carpet because it was overed by a bed, they have not proved that the tenants caused this damage. And while there were stains on this carpet as well, the in-going inspection report appears to show stains on the carpet at that stage.

Furthermore, the carpet was at least 10 years old. The insurer’s acceptance of the claim and the amount it paid to the owner is sufficient. The landlord cannot expect to have the entire cost met with both the excess and the indemnified amount for 10-year-old carpet, already well worn. Exemplary damages

The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show that 3 smoke alarms had been removed.

The tenants accepted that they removed 1 smoke alarm to put in their caravan. They denied removing the other 2.

I find it probable that the tenants removed all the alarms. But even if I am wrong, they accepted they had removed 1 of the alarms.

The interference with any means of escape from fire (the removal of a smoke alarm) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $4,000.00 may be awarded.

This was an intentional act by the tenants. If had an effect on the landlord, because the premises were no longer compliant with the smoke alarm regulations. It was against the landlord’s interests and against the public interest. The removal of a smoke alarm can literally result in a loss of life.

The landlord has proved a claim for exemplary damages. I award the landlord exemplary damages of $800.00 both as a punishment and as a deterrence so the tenants do not commit this unlawful act again. Result

The tenants’ application is dismissed, other than the claim for compensation for loss of enjoyment due to the ceiling leak and delayed repair for which I award them $500.00.

The landlord proven claims amount to $5,729.54. Once the tenants’ successful claim is offset, the tenants must pay the landlord $5,229.54.

The bond will be paid to the landlord. The tenants’ must therefore pay the landlord $3,069.54. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

The tenants’ sought a name suppression order. I make no order for suppression their names because their application is mostly unsuccessful as is (mostly) their defence to the landlord’s application – see section 95A RTA. Comment

The landlord asserted that the tenants produced fraudulent evidence, emails that were sent from an email address not connected with the landlord and, in effect, made up. The landlord submitted that this raised a credibility issue.

The tenants denied any interference with emails; they said none of their evidence was false.

I have been able to decide these applications without reference to the alleged false evidence. The Tribunal will not therefore take any action concerning the allegation of false evidence (in effect, perjury).

If the landlord considers that the tenants produced false evidence, they can refer the matter to the police for investigation.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4878460 — net $3,069.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee on warrant for eviction	$200.00		Filing fee on warrant for eviction
Locksmith fee (consent	$281.96		Locksmith fee (consent
Electrical work	$541.78		Electrical work
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$965.00		Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal (consent	$1,362.41		Rubbish removal (consent
Replace and rehang damaged doors (compensation	$400.00		Replace and rehang damaged doors (compensation
Fill hole and relay cobbles at side of house (consent	$883.20		Fill hole and relay cobbles at side of house (consent
Fill holes at entrance door (consent	$74.75		Fill holes at entrance door (consent
Remove gates and posts and dump (compensation	$200.00		Remove gates and posts and dump (compensation
Exemplary damages for smoke alarm removal	$800.00		Exemplary damages for smoke alarm removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of enjoyment due to ceiling leak		$500.00	loss of enjoyment due to ceiling leak
Total award	$5,729.54	$500.00
Net award	$3,069.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,069.54