What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4899541?

The tribunal order states: Bruce Leslie Beyer and Jahan Te Oka are liable to Harry Crawford in the sum of

How much money was awarded in case 4899541?

Carpet: $2,225.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899541?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10936666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4899541?

The tribunal order states: Bruce Leslie Beyer and Jahan Te Oka are liable to Harry Crawford in the sum of

How much money was awarded in case 4899541?

Carpet: $2,225.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899541?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10936666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 1, 53 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4899541 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899541 — net $255.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Carpet	$2,225.00		Carpet
Painting	$200.00		Painting
Exemplary damages		$200.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,575.00	$200.00
Net award	$255.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.00

Order

Bruce Leslie Beyer and Jahan Te Oka are liable to Harry Crawford in the sum of $255.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
Bond held by the Bond Centre in the sum of $2,120.00 (6520143-001) is due to Harry Crawford and will be paid to the Official Assignee.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Ms Peters of CD Property Management attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Beyer also attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for the bond and for exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations. Parties and Allegations of Dishonesty
Mr Beyer asserted that Mr Crawford is not his landlord, and that the only valid tenancy agreement was one that was signed by all parties naming someone else as the landlord and giving a different address for the premises. He also made allegations that the landlord and his agent had acted dishonestly in relation to the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgement. He went as far as to suggest that there was no valid tenancy agreement at all.
Plainly there was a tenancy agreement because the tenants were given the right to occupy the premises for which the tenants paid rent. The description of the premises is not critical. The parties agreed on the premises that were offered to the tenants and which the tenants accepted and occupied.
The issues concerning the tenancy agreement and the identity of the landlord arose because this was a new development, and it was unclear what address was to be given to each of the houses. Ms Peters said that she thought the tenants were to be offered a house owned by another person for whom she also acted as agent. Hence there was tenancy agreement naming him. A second agreement was sent to the tenants but only Ms Te Oka signed it for the tenants.
This Tribunal must look at the situation in total, not just the agreement signed by all parties. The reality is that the parties agreed that the tenants would occupy the premises for the payment of rent and that constituted the agreement.
Mt Crawford was the landlord because he is named as such in the amended agreement. There is no material evidence that someone else was the landlord.
Mr Beyer has said that he intends taking his allegations of dishonesty against Ms Peter and the landlord to the Police. That is the correct place for them. His allegations are not relevant to the issues that this Tribunal must decide.
I make no comment of whether Mr Beyer’s concerns are justified because they do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tenants’ Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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
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. Landlord’s Claims Cleaning
The landlord’s evidence satisfied me that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and additional cleaning was needed for which the tenants are responsible. I note that Mr Beyer left the cleaning to Ms Te Oka and he was not able to say what cleaning she did or didn’t do. But the landlord did not satisfy me that the claim in the sum of $316.25 is reasonable.
There was no photographic evidence that the inside of the oven needed cleaning. My impression is that the cleaning done by the landlord was meticulous because the property had been sold and the landlord was concerned to present it to the buyer in the best possible condition. It therefore went beyond what was needed to reach a reasonably clean condition.
In my assessment, cleaning costs of $150 would be reasonable and so that is my award. Carpet Damage
I am satisfied that the carpet in the premises was damaged by pet urine and consequently had to be replaced. The tenants had a cat and a dog in the premises and sometimes a second cat. The animals were indoors most of the time and the tenants were out working for at least some of that time.
The tenants did not necessarily accept that there was a strong or overwhelming smell of urine from the carpet as the landlord claimed. But that was Ms Peter’s evidence and the evidence given by the landlord’s cleaner, Ms Harrington.
There was no other damage to the carpet, and it was only a few months old. It is therefore unlikely that the landlord would replace the carpet unless it was contaminated by urine.
The landlord had the carpet professionally cleaned during the tenancy when they were presenting the premises for sale. They had it professionally cleaned again after the tenancy ended and the tenants also had it professionally cleaned. I accept that after all that cleaning, the odour remained unacceptable.
The claimed cost of replacing the carpet is reasonable and so I have awarded it in full. The damage is not covered by the landlord’s insurance policy. Keys
The landlord said that some keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The tenants denied that. The landlord did not have evidence to corroborate that the missing keys were given to the tenants. They were back up keys for the front door which had a security code. Ms Peters could not explain why, if they were missing at the end of the tenancy, she did not ask for them to be returned then.
I find that this claim has not been proved and so it is dismissed. Repairs and Painting
The landlord claims $1,966 for the cost of repairing and painting the premises. The tenants admit liability for some minor damage to a balustrade. There was also minor damage to a skirting board. Other damage shown in the landlord’s photographs is fair wear and tear.
The landlord was obliged by the sale and purchase agreement to paint the premises throughout. It is likely that it was that obligation that necessitated the painting, not damage caused by the tenants. I do not accept that the limited damage and painting required due to the tenants’ damage required the rest of the premises to be painted.
I have therefore awarded the sum of $200 for the repair and painting due to the tenants’ damage, being my assessment of its reasonable cost. Tenants’ Claims Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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.
The landlord received the bond from the tenants on 6 October 2023 and lodged it with the Bond Centre on 31 January 2024. That was plainly well outside the 23 working days within which it should have been lodged.
Ms Peters explained that she was new to property management at the time and the business was getting started. Initially, she worked with the landlord, who is also her partner.
In the case of a professional property manager, I expect there to be systems in place to ensure that the landlord’s bond obligations are complied with. Here, it seems that the landlord was also involved. The bond was paid when the mistake was noticed and so that mitigates the blame. But a property manager should do better.
I find that there was an unlawful act and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. An award of $200 is sufficient in the circumstances of this case. Amended Tenancy Agreement
The tenant’s claim in relation to the amended tenancy agreement not being signed is dismissed. Amended tenancy agreements must be signed. I am satisfied that one tenant did sign it and the amendments were to correct the identification of the premises. In any case, a breach of the requirement is not an unlawful act, and the tenant did not suffer any loss by it. Rent Receipts
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. Rent was paid by bank transfer and so there was no requirement for receipts.
The landlord did not provide a rent statement when the tenant asked for one and that was an unlawful act. But there was no claim in relation to that in the tenant’s application. As well, there was no issue over the rent and so the tenant was not put to any disadvantage. Filing Fee
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award of the filing fees. Suppression
I refuse the landlord’s request for name suppression. He has not been substantially successful, and I can see reason for suppression in this case. Result
The net result is that the tenants have a liability to the landlord that exceeds the bond. It follows that the bond must be paid to the landlord. But the landlord was declared bankrupt on 13 September 2024. Under the Insolvency Act 2006, the landlord’s assets, including claims, have vested in the Official Assignee. The bond will therefore be paid to the Official Assignee.
The tenants have a residual liability. That too is an asset that has vested in the Official Assignee. It follows that only the Official Assignee can require payment of it from the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899541 — net $255.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Carpet	$2,225.00		Carpet
Painting	$200.00		Painting
Exemplary damages		$200.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,575.00	$200.00
Net award	$255.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.00

Order

Bruce Leslie Beyer and Jahan Te Oka are liable to Harry Crawford in the sum of $255.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
Bond held by the Bond Centre in the sum of $2,120.00 (6520143-001) is due to Harry Crawford and will be paid to the Official Assignee.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Ms Peters of CD Property Management attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Beyer also attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for the bond and for exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations. Parties and Allegations of Dishonesty
Mr Beyer asserted that Mr Crawford is not his landlord, and that the only valid tenancy agreement was one that was signed by all parties naming someone else as the landlord and giving a different address for the premises. He also made allegations that the landlord and his agent had acted dishonestly in relation to the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgement. He went as far as to suggest that there was no valid tenancy agreement at all.
Plainly there was a tenancy agreement because the tenants were given the right to occupy the premises for which the tenants paid rent. The description of the premises is not critical. The parties agreed on the premises that were offered to the tenants and which the tenants accepted and occupied.
The issues concerning the tenancy agreement and the identity of the landlord arose because this was a new development, and it was unclear what address was to be given to each of the houses. Ms Peters said that she thought the tenants were to be offered a house owned by another person for whom she also acted as agent. Hence there was tenancy agreement naming him. A second agreement was sent to the tenants but only Ms Te Oka signed it for the tenants.
This Tribunal must look at the situation in total, not just the agreement signed by all parties. The reality is that the parties agreed that the tenants would occupy the premises for the payment of rent and that constituted the agreement.
Mt Crawford was the landlord because he is named as such in the amended agreement. There is no material evidence that someone else was the landlord.
Mr Beyer has said that he intends taking his allegations of dishonesty against Ms Peter and the landlord to the Police. That is the correct place for them. His allegations are not relevant to the issues that this Tribunal must decide.
I make no comment of whether Mr Beyer’s concerns are justified because they do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tenants’ Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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
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. Landlord’s Claims Cleaning
The landlord’s evidence satisfied me that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and additional cleaning was needed for which the tenants are responsible. I note that Mr Beyer left the cleaning to Ms Te Oka and he was not able to say what cleaning she did or didn’t do. But the landlord did not satisfy me that the claim in the sum of $316.25 is reasonable.
There was no photographic evidence that the inside of the oven needed cleaning. My impression is that the cleaning done by the landlord was meticulous because the property had been sold and the landlord was concerned to present it to the buyer in the best possible condition. It therefore went beyond what was needed to reach a reasonably clean condition.
In my assessment, cleaning costs of $150 would be reasonable and so that is my award. Carpet Damage
I am satisfied that the carpet in the premises was damaged by pet urine and consequently had to be replaced. The tenants had a cat and a dog in the premises and sometimes a second cat. The animals were indoors most of the time and the tenants were out working for at least some of that time.
The tenants did not necessarily accept that there was a strong or overwhelming smell of urine from the carpet as the landlord claimed. But that was Ms Peter’s evidence and the evidence given by the landlord’s cleaner, Ms Harrington.
There was no other damage to the carpet, and it was only a few months old. It is therefore unlikely that the landlord would replace the carpet unless it was contaminated by urine.
The landlord had the carpet professionally cleaned during the tenancy when they were presenting the premises for sale. They had it professionally cleaned again after the tenancy ended and the tenants also had it professionally cleaned. I accept that after all that cleaning, the odour remained unacceptable.
The claimed cost of replacing the carpet is reasonable and so I have awarded it in full. The damage is not covered by the landlord’s insurance policy. Keys
The landlord said that some keys were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The tenants denied that. The landlord did not have evidence to corroborate that the missing keys were given to the tenants. They were back up keys for the front door which had a security code. Ms Peters could not explain why, if they were missing at the end of the tenancy, she did not ask for them to be returned then.
I find that this claim has not been proved and so it is dismissed. Repairs and Painting
The landlord claims $1,966 for the cost of repairing and painting the premises. The tenants admit liability for some minor damage to a balustrade. There was also minor damage to a skirting board. Other damage shown in the landlord’s photographs is fair wear and tear.
The landlord was obliged by the sale and purchase agreement to paint the premises throughout. It is likely that it was that obligation that necessitated the painting, not damage caused by the tenants. I do not accept that the limited damage and painting required due to the tenants’ damage required the rest of the premises to be painted.
I have therefore awarded the sum of $200 for the repair and painting due to the tenants’ damage, being my assessment of its reasonable cost. Tenants’ Claims Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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.
The landlord received the bond from the tenants on 6 October 2023 and lodged it with the Bond Centre on 31 January 2024. That was plainly well outside the 23 working days within which it should have been lodged.
Ms Peters explained that she was new to property management at the time and the business was getting started. Initially, she worked with the landlord, who is also her partner.
In the case of a professional property manager, I expect there to be systems in place to ensure that the landlord’s bond obligations are complied with. Here, it seems that the landlord was also involved. The bond was paid when the mistake was noticed and so that mitigates the blame. But a property manager should do better.
I find that there was an unlawful act and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. An award of $200 is sufficient in the circumstances of this case. Amended Tenancy Agreement
The tenant’s claim in relation to the amended tenancy agreement not being signed is dismissed. Amended tenancy agreements must be signed. I am satisfied that one tenant did sign it and the amendments were to correct the identification of the premises. In any case, a breach of the requirement is not an unlawful act, and the tenant did not suffer any loss by it. Rent Receipts
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. Rent was paid by bank transfer and so there was no requirement for receipts.
The landlord did not provide a rent statement when the tenant asked for one and that was an unlawful act. But there was no claim in relation to that in the tenant’s application. As well, there was no issue over the rent and so the tenant was not put to any disadvantage. Filing Fee
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award of the filing fees. Suppression
I refuse the landlord’s request for name suppression. He has not been substantially successful, and I can see reason for suppression in this case. Result
The net result is that the tenants have a liability to the landlord that exceeds the bond. It follows that the bond must be paid to the landlord. But the landlord was declared bankrupt on 13 September 2024. Under the Insolvency Act 2006, the landlord’s assets, including claims, have vested in the Official Assignee. The bond will therefore be paid to the Official Assignee.
The tenants have a residual liability. That too is an asset that has vested in the Official Assignee. It follows that only the Official Assignee can require payment of it from the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899541 — Cleanliness at Unit 1, 53 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899541 — Cleanliness at Unit 1, 53 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions