What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911121?

The tribunal order states: Nicholas J Cowan must pay Hayley J Curd $1,663.57 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4911121?

Cleaning: $1,296.63 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,046.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911121?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699510-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911121?

The tribunal order states: Nicholas J Cowan must pay Hayley J Curd $1,663.57 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4911121?

Cleaning: $1,296.63 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,046.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911121?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699510-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25a Princes Street, Waikari, Waikari 7420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911121 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

25a Princes Street, Waikari, Waikari 7420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911121 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911121 — net $1,663.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2024	$400.00	Rent arrears to 1 May 2024
Cleaning	$1,296.63	Cleaning
Rubbish, lawns and gardens	$1,046.50	Rubbish, lawns and gardens
Bedroom door (insurance excess	$500.00	Bedroom door (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,663.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,663.57

Claims and awards for application 4911121 — net $1,663.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 1 May 2024

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 1 May 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $1,296.63
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish, lawns and gardens

Amount: $1,046.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish, lawns and gardens

Bedroom door (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Bedroom door (insurance excess

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

The Cost To Change The Locks And Key… — because I accept Mr Cowan’s undisputed evidence that he left the keys in the cupboard above the fridge at the end of the tenancy. Is Mr Cowan responsible for t…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Nicholas J Cowan must pay Hayley J Curd $1,663.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (6475548002) to Hayley J Curd immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by way of teleconference.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for the premises commencing on 7 December 2023. Rent was agreed at $400 per week and a bond of $1600 was paid.
The tenant, Mr Cowan, applied for exemplary damages for the premises being an unlawful residential premises and for late lodgement of the bond. The landlord, Ms Curd, cross applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy on 1 May 2024. Mr Curd’s claims

Are the premises unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes?

Ms Curd owns a rural property at 25 Princes Street Waikari. On the property is a house and the tenancy premises which consists of a ‘tiny home’ and surrounding gardens/lawns. While there is no legal subdivision of the land surrounding the tiny home, Ms Curd describes it as 25A Princes Street and she has placed, beside the letter box for the house (with the number 25 on it), a letter box at the gate with the number 25A on it. She said that she did so to enable post to be separated between 25 and 25A rather than the occupant of the house having to sperate it.
Mr Cowan claims that the tenancy agreement is ‘null and void’ because it describes the tenancy premises as being 25A Princes Street when that address does not legally exist. He also claims that the premises are unlawful because they do not fit the criteria of a ‘tiny home’ and they therefore require the appropriate building/resource consents to be lawfully able to be occupied for residential premises.
I dismiss the claim that the tenancy agreement is null and void. The description of the tenancy premises as being the premises at 25A Princes Street is simply a way to describe or label the premises that Mr Cowan was renting. He was fully aware that the premises that he agreed to rent was the tiny home and surrounding garden/lawns.
I am also not satisfied that Mr Cowan has provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the premises could not lawfully be occupied as residential premises because the house did not fit the Hurunui District Council ‘tiny home’ criteria. In particular, Mr Cowan claims that it could not be removed within 24 hours if required particularly because the deck outside the home is attached by way of concreted in piles, and because the power and sewage connections are not temporary.
Ms Curd disputes that the deck is attached by way of concreted piles. She said it is simply resting on the ground and the home can easily be removed within 24 hours if required. I also accept her evidence that the sewage and power connections are temporary. She provided evidence from the installers of both in support.

Should exemplary damages be payable for late lodgement of the bond?

There was no dispute that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it, as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Act. The bond was paid on or about 7 December 2023 and it was not lodged until 28 February 2024. Failure to lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum amount of $1,500.
The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied 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: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that the threshold requirement of intention is satisfied here.
I accept Ms Curd’s evidence that she was unaware until she went through her records on 28 February that the bond had not been lodged. She lodged it immediately upon becoming aware. Thus, I am not satisfied that Ms Curd turned her mind to the unlawful act (not lodging the bond within the time limit) and then deliberately set about to commit the unlawful act. I consider that the late lodgement was due simply to a genuine oversight. Ms Curd’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

Ms Curd provided a rent record which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Mr Cowan accepts that the rent summary is an accurate record of the rent paid for the tenancy.

Did Mr Cowan comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Mr Cowan did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Mr Cowan claims that he had cleaned the carpets using a Rug Doctor machine at the end of the tenancy. He also disputes that he had his two dogs inside the premises (as claimed by Ms Curd) saying that they were kept in a caravan that he had on the property. However, I find on the evidence before me (including the photographs provided in evidence) that it is more likely than not that cleaning, including additional cleaning of the carpets and the deodorising, was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean standard.
Mr Cowan did not dispute the claim to remove rubbish (including dog faeces) and to tidy the gardens. He said that he mowed some of the lawns but accepts that he did not mow the top section above the house because it was “too thick”.
The amounts ordered have been established by the production of invoices.
The claim for the cost to change the locks and keys is dismissed because I accept Mr Cowan’s undisputed evidence that he left the keys in the cupboard above the fridge at the end of the tenancy.

Is Mr Cowan responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. However, the ‘insurance excess limitation’ does not apply to intentional damage caused by the tenant (or others at the premises with his permission) or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence: section 49B(1) of the Act.
Ms Curd claims that the bedroom door was damaged (dented) during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Mr Cowan claims that the damage was there at the tenancy commencement. He provided a photograph said to have been taken on 8 December 2023 that shows the damage.
I find that it is more likely than not that the damage did occur during the tenancy, possibly when Mr Cowan was moving into the premises the day before the photograph was taken. I find particular support from the pre tenancy inspection report signed by both parties that makes no mention of the damage.
Ms Curd said that the door cannot be repaired and requires replacement. She provided a quote totalling $1,242.00 to replace it and she confirmed that she intends to replace it. However, the tenancy agreement records that Ms Curd has insurance for the premises with a policy excess of $500.00. I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused carelessly (rather than intentionally). This means that Mr Cowan’s maximum liability for the damage is the amount of the excess, $500.00. Tribunal application fee
Ms Curd has been successful in her claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Mr Cowan applied, in his application, 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).
Mr Cowan has been wholly unsuccessful in his application and mostly unsuccessful in his defence to Ms Curd’s claims. Suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911121 — net $1,663.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2024	$400.00	Rent arrears to 1 May 2024
Cleaning	$1,296.63	Cleaning
Rubbish, lawns and gardens	$1,046.50	Rubbish, lawns and gardens
Bedroom door (insurance excess	$500.00	Bedroom door (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,663.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,663.57

Claims and awards for application 4911121 — net $1,663.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 1 May 2024

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 1 May 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $1,296.63
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish, lawns and gardens

Amount: $1,046.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish, lawns and gardens

Bedroom door (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Bedroom door (insurance excess

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

The Cost To Change The Locks And Key… — because I accept Mr Cowan’s undisputed evidence that he left the keys in the cupboard above the fridge at the end of the tenancy. Is Mr Cowan responsible for t…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Nicholas J Cowan must pay Hayley J Curd $1,663.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (6475548002) to Hayley J Curd immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by way of teleconference.
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for the premises commencing on 7 December 2023. Rent was agreed at $400 per week and a bond of $1600 was paid.
The tenant, Mr Cowan, applied for exemplary damages for the premises being an unlawful residential premises and for late lodgement of the bond. The landlord, Ms Curd, cross applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy on 1 May 2024. Mr Curd’s claims

Are the premises unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes?

Ms Curd owns a rural property at 25 Princes Street Waikari. On the property is a house and the tenancy premises which consists of a ‘tiny home’ and surrounding gardens/lawns. While there is no legal subdivision of the land surrounding the tiny home, Ms Curd describes it as 25A Princes Street and she has placed, beside the letter box for the house (with the number 25 on it), a letter box at the gate with the number 25A on it. She said that she did so to enable post to be separated between 25 and 25A rather than the occupant of the house having to sperate it.
Mr Cowan claims that the tenancy agreement is ‘null and void’ because it describes the tenancy premises as being 25A Princes Street when that address does not legally exist. He also claims that the premises are unlawful because they do not fit the criteria of a ‘tiny home’ and they therefore require the appropriate building/resource consents to be lawfully able to be occupied for residential premises.
I dismiss the claim that the tenancy agreement is null and void. The description of the tenancy premises as being the premises at 25A Princes Street is simply a way to describe or label the premises that Mr Cowan was renting. He was fully aware that the premises that he agreed to rent was the tiny home and surrounding garden/lawns.
I am also not satisfied that Mr Cowan has provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the premises could not lawfully be occupied as residential premises because the house did not fit the Hurunui District Council ‘tiny home’ criteria. In particular, Mr Cowan claims that it could not be removed within 24 hours if required particularly because the deck outside the home is attached by way of concreted in piles, and because the power and sewage connections are not temporary.
Ms Curd disputes that the deck is attached by way of concreted piles. She said it is simply resting on the ground and the home can easily be removed within 24 hours if required. I also accept her evidence that the sewage and power connections are temporary. She provided evidence from the installers of both in support.

Should exemplary damages be payable for late lodgement of the bond?

There was no dispute that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it, as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Act. The bond was paid on or about 7 December 2023 and it was not lodged until 28 February 2024. Failure to lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum amount of $1,500.
The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied 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: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages because I am not satisfied that the threshold requirement of intention is satisfied here.
I accept Ms Curd’s evidence that she was unaware until she went through her records on 28 February that the bond had not been lodged. She lodged it immediately upon becoming aware. Thus, I am not satisfied that Ms Curd turned her mind to the unlawful act (not lodging the bond within the time limit) and then deliberately set about to commit the unlawful act. I consider that the late lodgement was due simply to a genuine oversight. Ms Curd’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

Ms Curd provided a rent record which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Mr Cowan accepts that the rent summary is an accurate record of the rent paid for the tenancy.

Did Mr Cowan comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Mr Cowan did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Mr Cowan claims that he had cleaned the carpets using a Rug Doctor machine at the end of the tenancy. He also disputes that he had his two dogs inside the premises (as claimed by Ms Curd) saying that they were kept in a caravan that he had on the property. However, I find on the evidence before me (including the photographs provided in evidence) that it is more likely than not that cleaning, including additional cleaning of the carpets and the deodorising, was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean standard.
Mr Cowan did not dispute the claim to remove rubbish (including dog faeces) and to tidy the gardens. He said that he mowed some of the lawns but accepts that he did not mow the top section above the house because it was “too thick”.
The amounts ordered have been established by the production of invoices.
The claim for the cost to change the locks and keys is dismissed because I accept Mr Cowan’s undisputed evidence that he left the keys in the cupboard above the fridge at the end of the tenancy.

Is Mr Cowan responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. However, the ‘insurance excess limitation’ does not apply to intentional damage caused by the tenant (or others at the premises with his permission) or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence: section 49B(1) of the Act.
Ms Curd claims that the bedroom door was damaged (dented) during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Mr Cowan claims that the damage was there at the tenancy commencement. He provided a photograph said to have been taken on 8 December 2023 that shows the damage.
I find that it is more likely than not that the damage did occur during the tenancy, possibly when Mr Cowan was moving into the premises the day before the photograph was taken. I find particular support from the pre tenancy inspection report signed by both parties that makes no mention of the damage.
Ms Curd said that the door cannot be repaired and requires replacement. She provided a quote totalling $1,242.00 to replace it and she confirmed that she intends to replace it. However, the tenancy agreement records that Ms Curd has insurance for the premises with a policy excess of $500.00. I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused carelessly (rather than intentionally). This means that Mr Cowan’s maximum liability for the damage is the amount of the excess, $500.00. Tribunal application fee
Ms Curd has been successful in her claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Mr Cowan applied, in his application, 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).
Mr Cowan has been wholly unsuccessful in his application and mostly unsuccessful in his defence to Ms Curd’s claims. Suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911121 — Cleanliness at 25a Princes Street, Waikari, Waikari 7420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911121 — Cleanliness at 25a Princes Street, Waikari, Waikari 7420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the premises unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes?

Should exemplary damages be payable for late lodgement of the bond?

How much is owed for rent?

Did Mr Cowan comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is Mr Cowan responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the premises unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes?

Should exemplary damages be payable for late lodgement of the bond?

How much is owed for rent?

Did Mr Cowan comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is Mr Cowan responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions