What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885764?

The tribunal order states: Hei Matau BBE Holdings Limited must pay Geoffrey Ian Woollams $1,393.66

How much money was awarded in case 4885764?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failing to provide a c…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885764?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11012694-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885764?

The tribunal order states: Hei Matau BBE Holdings Limited must pay Geoffrey Ian Woollams $1,393.66

How much money was awarded in case 4885764?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failing to provide a c…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885764?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11012694-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5i, 82 Cable Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885764 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885764 — net $1,393.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$575.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal by Body Corporate	$300.00		Rubbish removal by Body Corporate
Damaged kitchen bench	$500.00		Damaged kitchen bench
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond		$750.00	Failing to lodge bond
Compensation: Failing to provide a copy of the body		$100.00	Failing to provide a copy of the body
Bond retained by landlord of		$1,918.66	Bond retained by landlord of
Total award	$1,375.00	$2,768.66
Net award		$1,393.66
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,393.66

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885764 — net $1,393.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$575.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal by Body Corporate	$300.00		Rubbish removal by Body Corporate
Damaged kitchen bench	$500.00		Damaged kitchen bench
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond		$750.00	Failing to lodge bond
Compensation: Failing to provide a copy of the body		$100.00	Failing to provide a copy of the body
Bond retained by landlord of		$1,918.66	Bond retained by landlord of
Total award	$1,375.00	$2,768.66
Net award		$1,393.66
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,393.66

Order

Hei Matau BBE Holdings Limited must pay Geoffrey Ian Woollams $1,393.66 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Whittfield representing the landlord.
This was a periodic tenancy for a unit in an apartment building which commenced on 23 June 2023 and ended on 24 March 2024, after the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the following: a. Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and refund of the bond; b. Compensation for failing to supply a copy of the Body Corporate rules for the building; c. Compensation/rent reduction when access to the building was restricted; d. Refund of a fee charged by the building manager; e. Exemplary damages for unlawful entry by contractors; f. Compensation and exemplary damages while unable to use the induction hob; g. Compensation and exemplary damages for failing to paint damaged walls as agreed; h. Compensation for oven trays left in premises by tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal; replacement of a damaged kitchen bench and loss of rent.

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time and nor was it lodged during the tenancy. Ms Whittfield explained that it was an oversight because she was overseas not long after the tenancy began and didn’t check it had been lodged. However, when the tenant asked her about the bond at the end of the tenancy, she still didn’t lodge it and deducted amounts from the bond to cover various claims disputed by the tenant.
By failing to lodge the bond, the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
I am satisfied that the matter of intention in terms of s109 has been established in that the landlord has failed to adopt a robust process to ensure that the bond was paid to the Bond Centre. A landlord ought to know that if they do not have good processes, failing to lodge the bond is a likely consequence. Bond money belongs to tenants, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre as stakeholder and that landlords comply with their obligations under the Act. Failure to lodge bonds puts tenants in a compromised position, particularly if a dispute between them and the landlord arises, as happened in this case.
Exemplary damages are not compensatory but are designed to be a fine or penalty imposed to punish and deter and to mark disapproval of the conduct. After considering the factors in s109 and bearing in mind that the landlord did not lodge the Bond when she discovered the error, then deducted funds from the bond without the tenant’s agreement and without applying to the Tribunal, I find that an award of $750 exemplary damages is justified.

Did the landlord provide a statement about the Body Corporate Rules?

The premises are part of an apartment building and subject to the provisions of the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA). Section 16B RTA provides that Body corporate operational rules (BC rules) made under the UTA which affect a tenant of premises subject to the UTA are taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement. A tenancy agreement that creates or evidences the letting of such premises must set out a statement of the BC rules.
The tenancy agreement in this case does not include a statement about the BC rules. Ms Whitfield says she told the tenant that the apartment building was governed by a set of BC rules and advised him about a poster in the building lifts with a website for the BC which published the BC rules. However, the tenant denies that he was told where to find the BC rules.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligation to set out a statement of the BC rules in the tenancy agreement as required by section 16B RTA. The landlord’s obligation is important because the tenant is required to abide by any BC rules that affect him as an occupant because they are deemed terms of the tenancy. Therefore, they must be disclosed to the tenant in the same way as other terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement must be disclosed to the tenant.
I award some nominal compensation to the tenant for the failure to provide a statement of the BC rules of $100.

Were there restrictions on building access?

The tenant complained that his access to the building was restricted when the entry area tiles were being cleaned by contractors. He says that he was not given notice of the cleaning; he could not access his apartment through the entry lobby area, nor access the main lifts and mailboxes in the entry lobby while the work was being done. He had to enter the building through the carpark which made him feel unsafe. Therefore, he avoided going in and out of the building during this time. He says that the work occurred on two separate occasions and lasted for a week each time. He seeks reimbursement of 2 weeks’ rent as compensation.
The tenant provided a copy of one of the notices from the BC and posted on the residents’ Facebook page. The notice records that the tile clean would take place from 29 November to 1 December and states: “Due to the third stage of the tile clean
You will need to use the driveway ramp for entry and exit points, access lobby area, use lifts etc.
All three towers entry and exit points to and from Minus 1 will be out of service for the duration of time.....”
The landlord gave evidence that Minus 1 is a reference to the basement area below ground level. They also commented (and I accept) that the notice does not suggest, as the tenant claims, that the lobby and lifts from the main lobby area were out of use but that those driving into the basement would not be able to access the lobby and lifts from the basement and would need to walk up the driveway ramp to access the lobby and lifts.
The landlord also commented that cleaning of the entry tiles was part of the normal maintenance programme for the building and occupants were given notice directly by the body corporate. Notices are published in the lift areas and usually a copy of the notice is also placed into the mailbox for the apartment. Maintenance of the building is a necessary disruption and cannot be the basis for a compensation claim. In any event, Ms Whitfield says that she did not know about the cleaning and the tenant never raised any issue with her about access to the building. If he had, she would have investigated the issue.
I accept the landlord’s submissions that occupants of a multi storey apartment complex must expect some disruption for necessary building maintenance. I find that there is no basis for compensation in the circumstances and the claim is dismissed.

Is the landlord liable to refund a fee charged by the Building Manager?

The tenant left his keys inside the apartment and says that the building manager charged him $100 cash to unlock his apartment. He did not receive an invoice or a receipt for the payment. Months later he says that he emailed an address for the building manager requesting a receipt but received no response. He seeks reimbursement of the fee from the landlord on the basis that he has received no invoice and therefore, the fee is not a proper charge.
Ms Whittfield says that the tenant did not tell her about this, and she is not aware that the BC charges $100 for unlocking an apartment.
I consider that the landlord is not liable to reimburse the tenant for a fee charged by the building manager, paid in cash by the tenant, and for which there is no proof of payment. I consider that the onus is on the tenant to raise this issue directly with the BC. It is common for a building manager to charge a callout fee for unlocking an apartment, although demand for a cash payment is unusual without an invoice/receipt being given. However, I find that the landlord is not liable to reimburse the tenant and the claim is dismissed.

Is the landlord liable for unlawful entry by contractors?

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. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that contractors would regularly access the apartment to conduct smoke/fire alarm checks without prior notice being given to the tenant. On many occasions, he says that he was home and let the contractors in after they explained why they were there. However, there was an occasion when he came home to find them in his apartment already. He provided a copy of one notice given by the building manager in June 2023 which read: “Fire Security Services will be doing Remedials on level 5. They will need access to every unit on level 5. This is a legal compliance matter and is necessary for the Building Warrant of Fitness and Insurance. Access will be via the ABS apartment keys if the resident is not home. The date of inspection is Friday 23 rd of June from 8.30am.”
Ms Whittfield confirmed that the building manager/BC did not inform her of the intended inspections and the practice is for the building manager to notify occupants directly by putting notices in the lifts and in the occupants mailboxes. Furthermore, the tenant did not raise any issue with her about unlawful entry so that she could investigate the matter with the BC and/or building manager. A landlord can be liable to some extent if the BC/building manager does not notify a tenant of an upcoming inspection. However, it would be reasonable to expect a tenant to notify a landlord of any recurring issue so that a landlord could address it with the BC/building manager before being liable for any failure to ensure compliance with s48.
I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence provided by the tenant to establish that he was not given notice of the intended inspections. The notice which he did provide shows that the building manager notified residents. Furthermore, it is perfectly lawful for a landlord (or their agent) to enter the apartment for a specified purpose when the tenant is not present provided advance notice is given in accordance with s48. There is no evidence to establish such notice was not given by the building managers.
Although the tenant claims that he was not given prior notice, he confirms that he let contractors in when they explained why they were there. Accordingly, entry in those circumstances is with the tenant’s consent.
In summary, there is insufficient evidence of unlawful entry, for which the landlord would be liable, and the claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these 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 RTA. Painting work
The tenant says when he viewed the premises Ms Whittfield agreed to paint a wardrobe door that was damaged. He also says that once the tenancy started he raised the issue of a bedroom ceiling requiring painting because of some damage. He says that the landlord reneged on the agreement to paint the wardrobe and failed to paint the bedroom ceiling.
Ms Whittfield sent the tenant a text at the start of the tenancy which records that she had arranged for a painter come to the house. However, her evidence is that she advised the tenant that she “may or may not” paint the door and the painter was only ever instructed to prepare a quote. She did not agree to do any painting work and it is not recorded in the tenancy agreement nor in the property inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement. She says that because the tenancy had already started and she was heading overseas, the work went on the back burner. Also, she says that the painter’s costs for preparing a quote outweighed the work required. In any event, the tenant sent her a copy of the property inspection report he signed off at the start of the tenancy recording that all areas of the premises were in good condition. He stated in his covering email: “On the form I’ve matched your entries indicating everything is fine. There is minor wear and tear (paint chips, dents, barely visible carpet stains, etc) but nothing of concern to me. My only thing to note which I think we both missed earlier is damage to the ceiling in the smaller room. I have attached a photo of this. Would you like me to ask the painter to sort this while they touch up the wardrobe door?”
I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to establish any firm agreement to complete the painting work and the claim is dismissed. The kitchen hob
The tenant says that the premises were advertised as having an induction hob but in fact the hob was an old coil style. However, given that he inspected the premises before agreeing to let, I consider he was fully aware of the facilities.\ provided including the hob.
The tenant’s main claim is that the hob was not working properly and that the time taken to organise repairs and then replacement of the hob meant that he was without a working hob for approximately two months. The timeline established was: 19 July 2023:The tenant advised the landlord that the front right hob turned itself on as soon as the hob had power and would not turn off unless turned off at the wall. He had contacted the manufacturer who gave a price for sending out a technician. He asked the landlord for permission to handle the matter and reimburse him for the cost. The landlord agreed immediately. 31 July: The technician diagnosed the problem and told the tenant not to use the hob saying that they would get back to him. There is no evidence that the tenant told the landlord that he was advised not to use the hob in the meantime; 7 August: The tenant advised the landlord that the technician said that they could not source replacement parts and the hob needed to be replaced. He advised the landlord of the estimated costs. 8 August: The landlord approved the replacement hob and paid the invoiced costs on 11 August. The replacement hob was installed reasonably quickly in August.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord arranged for replacement of the hob in a reasonable timeframe after being advised by the tenant. The tenant did not tell the landlord that he had been advised not to use the existing hob until a replacement was installed. There is also insufficient evidence to establish that the old hob could not be used. Therefore, I find the landlord is not in breach of their duties and the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the oven trays?

The tenant says the landlord deducted $160 from the bond to replace damaged oven trays at the end of the tenancy. However, the tenant claims that the trays belonged to him, and he left them at the property by mistake.
I am satisfied that the landlord is not able to prove that the trays belonged to them, as they are not itemised on the chattels list. I am also satisfied that a photo produced by the landlord shows that the trays appear damaged and beyond cleaning such that they disposed of them. If the trays did belong to the tenant and were left by him at the premises, the landlord was justified in disposing of them.
It follows that neither party has proved their claim for compensation in respect of the oven trays. The tenant’s claim is dismissed and the landlord’s deduction of $160 from the bond is reversed. In that regard, I have accounted for the balance of the bond retained by the landlord in my orders.

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) RTA.
The landlord said that the premises were commercially cleaned before the tenancy started and they expected it to be commercially cleaned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. However, that is not the tenant’s obligation under the RTA.
The tenant's obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy which is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. 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 based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Both parties provided photos of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord from $1,558.55 to $575 which is an amount I consider reasonable for the cleaning evidenced in the photos. For example: I have deducted amounts claimed for cleaning carpets as there are no photos which show stains on the carpet or dirt that could not be removed by vacuuming; There were no photos of the windows to justify the window cleaning work; There were limited photos showing dirt around doorways and skirting boards. Ms Whittfield also claimed $300 for her time removing rubbish from the premises at a rate of $150/hour which is unreasonable. The landlord is not permitted to charge their time at a rate that significantly exceeds the reasonable costs of hiring a cleaner to do the work. I accept that the Body Corporate charged the landlord a fee of $300 for rubbish left in a common area. The tenant is liable for that charge.

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 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.
If an item is damaged during the tenancy by the tenant and must be replaced, I must consider 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 must take into account the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
The landlord claims that the kitchen bench, made from linen finish stainless steel, has been damaged during the tenancy. Photos taken show two ingrained marks which the landlord says could not be removed by cleaning. A kitchen specialist they consulted thinks the marks have occurred from placing a hot pot on the bench for a prolonged period. The tenant also attached two brackets to the inside of the stainless-steel sink which the landlord says they cannot remove. They have also been advised that removing the brackets will damage the sink. The sink and bench are one unit.
The tenant denies damaging the benchtop but confirms attaching the brackets to the sink for holding sponge cloths. He says the brackets come with a sticky backing but are easily removed as he says they often fell off during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the damage to the sink and benchtop was caused during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was caused carelessly.
The landlord advises that the benchtop and sink unit is approximately 15 years old as it was new when they moved into the apartment in 2009. Current depreciation tables estimate the life of a stainless-steel bench to be 28-42 years. Linen finish stainless steel is a higher quality stainless steel with a distinctive pattern resembling linen fabric. Online descriptions say the main advantage of the product is that it conceals imperfections such as fingerprints, smudges, or minor scratches, making it suitable for high traffic areas, and it is designed to last for decades.
The quote for replacing the benchtop and sink is $5,880. The landlords confirm that they are intending to replace the unit but are waiting for the kitchen company to schedule a date. If I accept that the product ought to last up to 40 years, then the replacement costs should be reduced for depreciation by 37.5% to $3,675.
However, I need to consider whether the tenant’s liability should be further limited to the lesser of four weeks rent ($3,600) or any applicable insurance excess (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above).
The landlord has ticked the insurance statement in the tenancy agreement to confirm that: “There is insurance covering this rental property that is relevant to tenant’s liability for damage to premises, including damage to body corporate facilities.” The landlord also recorded that there was an insurance policy in the name of the Piermont Body Corporate, but the insurer and excess amount was not completed. When asked about those details at the hearing, the landlord advised that while they used to have cover arranged through the BC, they did not realise that the cover was no longer included in the insurance taken out by the BC. Therefore, they advise that they did not in fact have any insurance cover during the tenancy. The premises have since been relet and they have arranged insurance cover.
I gave the landlord’s an opportunity to advise the Tribunal after the hearing of the insurance cover and excess that had been in place when it was arranged through the BC, and the excess that applies to the insurance cover they arranged for their current tenancy. Ms Whittfield advised that she was unable to find evidence showing the BC insurance cover and excess previously arranged and she provided evidence that the current insurance cover has an excess of $500.
The issue for me to determine is what limit should be applied to the tenant’s liability for the kitchen bench damage. There are three options: a. Limit liability to the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent, on the basis that the landlord did not have insurance cover; b. Limit liability to a reasonable excess amount, on the basis that the landlord disclosed in the tenancy agreement that there was insurance cover but did not disclose the excess. Consider whether it would be fair to adopt the current $500 excess on the basis that the landlord would have arranged cover with a similar excess for this tenancy; c. Find that the tenant is not liable to pay any amount and dismiss the claim because the landlord incorrectly disclosed that there was insurance and did not disclose any excess.
I consider that the landlord’s failure to complete an accurate insurance statement is a mistake that the landlord should wear. In other words, the tenant should not be penalised for the landlord’s failure to insure. The tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord’s clear statement in the tenancy agreement that they were insured for tenant damage to the premises.
I accept the landlord’s submission that this their error was subsequently discovered and was a genuine mistake but nevertheless the Insurance Statement, as required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) RTA forms an important part of the tenancy agreement, as demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B RTA.
Had the tenant understood that there was no insurance and that he might potentially be liable for a claim up to $3,600, that may have alerted the tenant more appropriately to his potential liability for damages and better inform him to manage the risk accordingly. That is a major purpose of the Insurance Statement.
Given that the landlord did not disclose the excess, I could determine that the tenant is not liable for any amount. However, Higher Courts have considered the purpose of the RTA and commented that the RTA requires the Court to protect both the landlord and the tenant by fair and readily enforceable rules and should strive to find a solution that is fair to both a reasonable landlord and a reasonable tenant rather than to the tenant alone. 1 This view is also supported by s85(1) RTA which provides that: 1 Anquetil v North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board HC CHCH AP93/89 30 October 1989 and Ziki Investments (Properties) Limited v McDonald HC AK CIV 2008-404-0038 Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.
For the reasons explained above, I consider that it would be fair to apply an insurance excess of $500 on the basis that had the landlord arranged insurance for this tenancy, they would likely have opted for the same excess amount chosen for their current tenancy. I award this sum towards the replacement of the kitchen bench accordingly.

Is the tenant liable for loss of rent?

The landlord says that that they could not let the premises straight away because of cleaning and damages and they seek two weeks loss of rent. The tenant does not accept that the landlord is entitled to claim loss of rent and notes that they did not carry out an inspection until almost 2 weeks after the tenancy ended. The evidence may be summarised as follows: 27 February and 22 March 2024: The premises were advertised on Trade Me in anticipation of the tenancy ending. 24 March 2024: The tenancy ended, and the tenant moved out. 5 April: The landlord conducted the end of tenancy inspection. April: The landlord showed the premises to prospective tenants who were interested in the premises, but the landlord then decided to appoint a property manager rather than manage the tenancy themselves. By 20 April: Cleaners cleaned premises and submitted their invoice. 1 May: the landlords appointed a property manager and readvertised premises. 28 June: New tenancy started.
The landlord says it took 2 weeks to book a cleaner. The cleaning invoice is dated 20 April, but they invoiced sometime after the cleaning was done. The landlords asked the kitchen company to assess the bench on 26 April and they visited on 1 May. However, as at the hearing date the kitchen bench had not been replaced and the premises had been relet.
To succeed with their claim for loss of rent, the landlords need to establish with supporting evidence that there was a 2-week delay in letting the premises because of the cleaning work required and the kitchen bench assessment. I am not satisfied that the kitchen bench assessment caused any delay in re-letting the premises given that the kitchen company visited within 5 days of the landlord’s request and no work has been done to replace the bench.
There is insufficient evidence to persuade me that the cleaning work caused a two-week delay. Given that I have dismissed much of the cleaning claim on the basis that there was a lack of evidence, I cannot take into account the time spent on the cleaning work for which the tenant is not liable. I consider that the delay in conducting an inspection, then a decision to appoint a property manager and readvertise through the manager, likely contributed to the reletting delay. In short I am not satisfied that loss of rent is proved, and I dismiss the claim.
The portion of the bond money retained by the landlord has been taken into account in the final monetary orders above.
Both parties applied for suppression of their names and identifying details which must be granted to the party who substantially succeeds in the proceedings. Neither party has substantially succeeded. Therefore, neither party is granted suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Did the landlord provide a statement about the Body Corporate Rules?

Were there restrictions on building access?

Is the landlord liable to refund a fee charged by the Building Manager?

Is the landlord liable for unlawful entry by contractors?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the oven trays?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Did the landlord provide a statement about the Body Corporate Rules?

Were there restrictions on building access?

Is the landlord liable to refund a fee charged by the Building Manager?

Is the landlord liable for unlawful entry by contractors?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the oven trays?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions