What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001069?

The tribunal order states: Huanyu Liu and Chunyan Wang must pay Rempstone Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5001069?

Break Lease Costs: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement (Four Weeks: $2,600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,674.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11142562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001069?

The tribunal order states: Huanyu Liu and Chunyan Wang must pay Rempstone Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5001069?

Break Lease Costs: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement (Four Weeks: $2,600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $7,674.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11142562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

188 Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001069 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001069 — net $1,454.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 October 2024	$7,674.00		Rent arrears to 31 October 2024
Break lease costs	$600.00		Break lease costs
Compensation: Cleanliness		$500.00	Cleanliness
Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms
Rent abatement (four weeks		$2,600.00	Rent abatement (four weeks
Total award	$8,274.00	$4,100.00
Net award	$1,454.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,454.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001069 — net $1,454.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 October 2024	$7,674.00		Rent arrears to 31 October 2024
Break lease costs	$600.00		Break lease costs
Compensation: Cleanliness		$500.00	Cleanliness
Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - Smoke alarms
Rent abatement (four weeks		$2,600.00	Rent abatement (four weeks
Total award	$8,274.00	$4,100.00
Net award	$1,454.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,454.00

Order

Huanyu Liu and Chunyan Wang must pay Rempstone Property Management Limited, Thuy Van Duong and Duy Anh Hua $1,454.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5655219-001) to Rempstone Property Management Limited, Thuy Van Duong and Duy Anh Hua immediately.

Reasons

The hearing took place on 28 November 2024. Ms Sun attended the hearing for the landlords. Both tenants also attended. A translator interpreted for the tenants. The landlords did not attend. Background
The tenancy began on 27 March 2024. The tenants accepted the tenancy on the understanding that they intended to buy their own home. The landlord insisted on a fixed term tenancy, but they agreed that they would release the tenants from the fixed term on the usual terms including that the tenants would remain liable to pay the rent until the premises were relet.
The tenants found a home for themselves, and they informed the landlord that they wanted to be released from the tenancy. The landlord then put in place the usual break lease process and the break lease agreement was signed on 15 July. The tenants moved out on 5 August.
The landlords advertised the premises for rent but there was little interest and the tenants suggested reducing the rent by $50 per week. They agreed to make up the difference for the remainder of the fixed term. The landlord reduced the asking rent. There was some interest from prospective renters but still there was no concluded agreement.
This continued until the landlords decided that they would sell the premises. The premises were listed for sale on 27 November.
The tenants paid rent until 13 August and landlord claims the unpaid rent until 28 November. They make other claims that are dealt with below.
The tenants say that it is likely that the premises would have been rented if the landlords had complied with their obligations to provide the premises to them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They do not accept that they should be liable to pay further rent. They also make other claims that are dealt with below. Rent
There is no dispute about what rent has fallen due and what rent has ben paid. The dispute is about whether the landlord presented the premises for reletting in a reasonable condition and, if they didn’t, whether the premises would have been relet if the premises had been presented in a reasonable condition and if so when that would have happened. This exercise requires some speculation.
The tenants were in a hurry to secure and move into the premises. They were moving from Auckland, and they had their two dogs. Their rental options were therefore limited. They accepted the premises on the understanding that the landlord did not have time to fully ready the premises for them. Consequently, the premises were not provided to the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The premises were furnished but the tenants had brought their furniture with them and wanted the premises to be unfurnished. The landlords obliged by moving their furniture into the garage.
The tenants promptly moved themselves and their furniture into the premises. That made it more difficult for the landlord to complete the required cleaning and it was agreed that it would not be done and that the tenants would ensure that the premises would be returned to the landlords in a similar condition that it was in when they were provided to them. In other words, the landlord would need to do some cleaning of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
When the tenants vacated, they pointed out to the landlords that the premises needed to be cleaned and tidied to be presented for rent in a reasonable condition. For example, there was preexisting mould on windows and the outside area was untidy.
The cleaning inside the premises was not completed until the beginning of September and the outside areas remained untidy for longer.
I find that the landlords were in breach of their obligation to complete the cleaning and tidying of the premises when the tenants vacated. That should have been arranged and completed as soon as the tenants vacated. After all, the landlords expected the tenants to continue paying the rent until the premises were relet and it was their responsibility to present it well because that was not the situation at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants’ position is that they should not have any further liability for rent. That is unrealistic. I accept that the suboptimal condition of the premises likely affected its rentability and so there should be an abatement of rent to reflect that. But the time of year and the depressed state of the rental market were also factors that affected the premises’ rentability. It was likely to take time to relet the premises in any case.
The landlords claim rent until the premises were put on the market for sale. That too is unrealistic. Plainly the landlords’ decision to sell the premises must have been made before the premises were put on the market. The premises had to be prepared for sale. At the time of writing this decision the premises can be seen advertised for sale online and they look significantly better than they did when they were being advertised for rent. I note as well that the landlords’ evidence of prospective renters showing interest in the premises ceases at the end of September.
It follows that the landlords are not entitled to claim rent to 28 November. I find that it is reasonable for a claim to be made until 31 October.
As to the abatement of rent, I note that on 16 September the agents wrote to the landlords stating that interest in the premises was limited due to the “current state of the property”. There is no science to calculating the abatement due to the landlords’ failure to present the premises in a satisfactory condition. Doing the best I can on the evidence I find that the rent should be abated by four weeks.
I calculate that rent due from 14 August to 31 October is $7,674. Four weeks rent is $2,720. Therefore, the tenants are liable to pay $5,730 ($7,674 – $2,720). Internet Charges
The landlords had an internet account for the premises during the tenancy. The tenants had their own internet account and paid for the internet they used. The landlords claim the cost for the internet that they incurred because they say that they gave the tenants the option to opt out of the landlords’ internet and they did not notify them that they wished to do so.
The landlords referred to messages between them and the tenants which they say show that the tenants were given the option of arranging their own internet, among other services such as gas. I do not agree that those messages clearly explain to the tenants that unless they rejected the landlords’ internet, they would be liable for it. The tenants themselves certainly didn’t see it that way otherwise they would not have arranged their own internet.
I also think that the landlords would be wrong to offer the tenants an opt out in that way. It is more usual for tenants to arrange their own internet. Where the landlord arranges it, it would usually be included with the rent and the tenancy agreement would say so. The landlord should have asked the tenants to confirm what services they wanted the landlord to provide not what services they didn’t want them to provide.
I note as well that the landlords did not claim internet charges from the tenants during the tenancy. That suggests that the landlords may well have overlooked the question of the internet altogether.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Pest Control
The landlords claim the cost of pest control services from the tenants. They say that when the landlords’ workers came to the premises to clean after the tenants vacated, they were bitten by fleas and that they had to employ pest control services to eradicate them. The landlords say that the fleas must have come from the tenants’ dogs.
The tenants deny that and say that their dogs were treated for fleas and that there were no issues with fleas during the tenancy.
There is no evidence from the landlords’ workers or the landlords themselves and no hard evidence that there were fleas in the premises. The landlords have therefore failed to prove the claim and so it is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlords claim $540.50 for cleaning the premises after the tenants vacated.
I have found that the premises were not provided to the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I accept that the tenants did some cleaning before they vacated the premises and I also accept that they continued to have an obligation to keep the premises clean until the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at least to an extent required given the condition that they were in when they were provided to the tenants. As I have said, it was the landlords’ obligation to clean the premises after the tenants vacated. This claim is therefore dismissed. Break Lease Costs
The parties agreed this claim at $600. Tenants’ Claims Obligations Relating to the Condition of the Premises
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As I have said, the tenants agreed that the premises could be left in the condition that they were provided to them until the end of the tenancy. But that applied only to the house, not the outside areas.
There was a pigeon coop in the garden which the landlords agreed to remove. The main structure was removed but not the detritus left by the pigeons. There were also items left around the outside areas that made the place look untidy. As well, the garage and carport were not emptied of the landlords’ belongings.
I accept that the untidy condition of the outside areas detracted from the tenants’ enjoyment of the premises. They complained about in emails to the landlords. I do not find that an award of exemplary damages is warranted but an award of compensation is. An award of $500 is appropriate.
The tenants made some other complaints about the general condition of the premises, but I do not find that the landlords were in breach of their obligations in that respect or, if they were, that any award is required.
But the landlords failed to have compliant smoke alarms installed in the premises at the start of the premises. They were not installed until 14 April, nearly three weeks after the tenancy started. Allowances can be made in some respects due to the tenants’ haste to move in, but not for smoke alarms. The premises should not have been provided to the tenants without compliant smoke alarms.
Smoke alarms are required to the safety of those occupying the premises and any failure by landlords to comply with the requirements must be treated seriously. By allowing the tenants to occupy the premises without smoke alarms the landlords showed a disregard for their safety and an award of exemplary damages is required. Given that the alarms were installed not too long after the tenants moved in, an award at the lower end of the scale is sufficient and I award $1,000. Unlawful Entry
The tenants say that one of the landlords came onto the premises twice without proper notice and without their consent.
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.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The landlord concerned did not enter the house and the tenants were given some notice that he would be coming. In one case he came to feed the pigeons. In these circumstances there was no unlawful act, and any transgression was minor. It does not a warrant an award of compensation. Other Claims
The tenants have made some hefty claims for compensation including that the rent was too high, loss of earnings and for mental and physical suffering. I reject all these claims for lack of proof or there being no legal basis for them. Filing Fee
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of filing fees. Result
After the awards to the parties have been set off against each other, the tenants are left with a liability that exceeds the bond. Therefore, the bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenants must pay the landlords the remaining liability.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001069 — Rent arrears at 188 Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001069 — Rent arrears at 188 Avonhead Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions