What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5011548?

The tribunal order states: Issac de Malmanche, Hannah Vercaza and Danielle Vercaza to pay Trio Group

How much money was awarded in case 5011548?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Mattress: $25.00 awarded to landlord; To Remove Wall Marks - Bedroom And F…: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011548?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375903-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5011548?

The tribunal order states: Issac de Malmanche, Hannah Vercaza and Danielle Vercaza to pay Trio Group

How much money was awarded in case 5011548?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Mattress: $25.00 awarded to landlord; To Remove Wall Marks - Bedroom And F…: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011548?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375903-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4N, 51 Webb Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011548 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011548 — net $165.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: kitchen appliances	$50.00	Cleaning: kitchen appliances
Removal of mattress	$25.00	Removal of mattress
Removing the film and cleaning windows	$50.00	Removing the film and cleaning windows
To remove wall marks - bedroom and front door	$40.00	To remove wall marks - bedroom and front door
Net award	$165.00
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$165.00

Order

Issac de Malmanche, Hannah Vercaza and Danielle Vercaza to pay Trio Group Limited $165.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (3475543-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Trio Group Limited: $165.00 Issac de Malmanche, Hannah Vercaza and Danielle Vercaza: $2,735.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this second hearing.
Part of the tenants’ claim was adjourned after the first hearing. An order was made that the landlord pay compensation for a loss of amenity and this money has been paid.
In an order made giving directions dated 29 November 2024 I clarified the tenant’s remaining claims as a failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, and the refund of the bond. The claim for maintenance was withdrawn at the second hearing.
The landlord should have filed an application for claims against the bond. This was not done, however the parties have been emailing about the issues since the tenancy ended. I was satisfied there would be no prejudice to the tenants to hear the landlord’s bond claim and the tenants agreed we should finalise matters without another hearing.
The questions I need to decide include: • Should the tenants get compensation because of a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy? • Should the tenants pay for damage?

Should the tenants get compensation because of a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim that the construction work at the apartment complex and in their apartment was a breach of quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenants’ submissions include: • They felt misled about the extent of the construction • Had they been fully informed they would not have signed the tenancy agreement • The construction was more invasive than explained • The construction took longer than explained • The landlord chose not to disclose the details of the construction • The landlord took advantage of them • They were not aware of their rights and mistakenly thought they had to endure the tenancy because they signed the tenancy agreement • They were denied the opportunity to end the lease early • The text messages sent during the tenancy are proof there was significant disruption • they could not peacefully enjoy living in the tenancy premises.
In reply, the landlord had submissions prepared by their lawyer. The landlord did not agree there was a breach of quiet enjoyment because: • The repair work was necessary, and the level of interruption justified and expected in the circumstances • The tenants were aware of the work when they signed the tenancy agreement • It was the additional “WCC” work that required scaffolding and wrap • The tenants said the property was “great” and moved out for reasons unrelated to the construction work • The first complaint to the landlord about the construction work was in August, after the three tenants named on the tenancy agreement had moved out.
The lawyer said the District Court decision of Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 should be taken into consideration because it also dealt with a renovation in a city apartment. In that case the erection of scaffolding, window repairs, construction noise, and a loss of privacy did not amount to a loss of quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s motivation for ending the tenancy was also an important factor.
The tenants responded that their situation was different because: We were unable to use the living room for extended periods due to construction workers frequently walking in and out of the property, and moving furniture even into the kitchen. The lack of doors for months made the living room unusable and significantly interfered with our ability to enjoy the premises. Additionally, if [two of the tenants] had stayed in the flat during the replacement of the bedroom window, [the other tenant] would not have been able to use her bedroom either. Construction workers would have been walking in and out of the bedroom and flat, as well as along the scaffolding directly outside her window, further disrupting her privacy. This is what influenced [two of the tenants] to move out at the end of August, instead of staying at the property longer to secure new tenants.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have not found any evidence which supports the claim that the landlord misled the tenants and took advantage of them, breaching their quiet enjoyment of the premises. I accept landlord’s submission the work was necessary and the level of disruption was justified in the circumstances. The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. I note that compensation has already been allowed for the loss of amenity, which is the best remedy where tenants cannot use the tenancy premises as expected.

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy and I had photos and some very short video clips from the tenants. I was also provided with written submissions and an affidavit. I have considered all the evidence, and in particular the landlord’s photos, and I find a small amount of additional cleaning was required for the oven, stove top, rangehood and microwave. The cleaner’s invoice is not itemised so I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me.
I also allow two hours for the owner’s time removing the window film and cleaning the windows afterwards. The tenants should have removed this before they moved out and the time claimed is reasonable. I also allow one hour compensation because the owner arranged to meet the person collecting the mattress. Again, this should have been removed before the end of the tenancy. I allow $25 an hour which is standard for claims by owners.

Should the tenants pay for damage?

The landlord has claimed the cost of painting walls, replacing a shower curtain, and replacing a lamp. The 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 tenants 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.
There is a claim for $80 for painting some of the walls after the tenancy ended. The landlord submitted this was necessary because of careless damage. The landlord provided photos showing scuffs and knocks in the stairwell, dark marks by the shoe rack by the front door, and a scrape from a hair clip attached to a curtain in the bedroom. The landlord said the marks could not be cleaned off and they were the result of careless damage. The tenants said they had not noticed the marks in the bedroom or by the front door during the tenancy, and any marks were fair wear and tear.
I have considered the photos. I find the marks in the stairwell to be fair wear and tear. Landlords have to expect there will be marks on the paint in hallways and stairwells because they are high use areas, and the walls get rubbed and bumped even with normal use. I find the other marks to be careless damage because it seems most likely to me the tenants would have noticed the first few marks and should have taken steps to stop further damage. I have allowed $40 for the repairs which seems reasonable to me.
The claim for a replacement shower curtain is not allowed. The landlord submitted that this was new at the start of the tenancy and too mouldy at the end of the tenancy to be used by the next tenant. The tenants submitted that shower curtains get mouldy through normal use and they should not have to pay for fair wear and tear. The photos do not show an excessive amount of mould and I am not persuaded there was damage. It seems most likely to me the landlord had the option of cleaning or replacing the curtain, and chose to replace it. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for a replacement lamp is dismissed. The landlord has not replaced this lamp - which was provided as a chattel and sat on the dining table – even though the tenancy ended three months ago. This means there is no invoice and the landlord cannot prove the claim.
The claim for the broken dish washer part was dismissed at the hearing. There is no invoice for this repair and the landlord said the dishwasher functions perfectly well, even though a corner broke off a small fitting. I find there is no loss to the landlord and this claim is dismissed. I also note the landlord has not proved careless or intentional damage. Other orders
The request for the refund of the Bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The tenants’ names are published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money from the bond at the end of the tenancy. Suppression was not allowed for the landlord in the October order, and so both names will be published. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5011548 — net $165.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: kitchen appliances	$50.00	Cleaning: kitchen appliances
Removal of mattress	$25.00	Removal of mattress
Removing the film and cleaning windows	$50.00	Removing the film and cleaning windows
To remove wall marks - bedroom and front door	$40.00	To remove wall marks - bedroom and front door
Net award	$165.00
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$165.00

Order

Issac de Malmanche, Hannah Vercaza and Danielle Vercaza to pay Trio Group Limited $165.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (3475543-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Trio Group Limited: $165.00 Issac de Malmanche, Hannah Vercaza and Danielle Vercaza: $2,735.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this second hearing.
Part of the tenants’ claim was adjourned after the first hearing. An order was made that the landlord pay compensation for a loss of amenity and this money has been paid.
In an order made giving directions dated 29 November 2024 I clarified the tenant’s remaining claims as a failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, and the refund of the bond. The claim for maintenance was withdrawn at the second hearing.
The landlord should have filed an application for claims against the bond. This was not done, however the parties have been emailing about the issues since the tenancy ended. I was satisfied there would be no prejudice to the tenants to hear the landlord’s bond claim and the tenants agreed we should finalise matters without another hearing.
The questions I need to decide include: • Should the tenants get compensation because of a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy? • Should the tenants pay for damage?

Should the tenants get compensation because of a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim that the construction work at the apartment complex and in their apartment was a breach of quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenants’ submissions include: • They felt misled about the extent of the construction • Had they been fully informed they would not have signed the tenancy agreement • The construction was more invasive than explained • The construction took longer than explained • The landlord chose not to disclose the details of the construction • The landlord took advantage of them • They were not aware of their rights and mistakenly thought they had to endure the tenancy because they signed the tenancy agreement • They were denied the opportunity to end the lease early • The text messages sent during the tenancy are proof there was significant disruption • they could not peacefully enjoy living in the tenancy premises.
In reply, the landlord had submissions prepared by their lawyer. The landlord did not agree there was a breach of quiet enjoyment because: • The repair work was necessary, and the level of interruption justified and expected in the circumstances • The tenants were aware of the work when they signed the tenancy agreement • It was the additional “WCC” work that required scaffolding and wrap • The tenants said the property was “great” and moved out for reasons unrelated to the construction work • The first complaint to the landlord about the construction work was in August, after the three tenants named on the tenancy agreement had moved out.
The lawyer said the District Court decision of Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 should be taken into consideration because it also dealt with a renovation in a city apartment. In that case the erection of scaffolding, window repairs, construction noise, and a loss of privacy did not amount to a loss of quiet enjoyment. The tenant’s motivation for ending the tenancy was also an important factor.
The tenants responded that their situation was different because: We were unable to use the living room for extended periods due to construction workers frequently walking in and out of the property, and moving furniture even into the kitchen. The lack of doors for months made the living room unusable and significantly interfered with our ability to enjoy the premises. Additionally, if [two of the tenants] had stayed in the flat during the replacement of the bedroom window, [the other tenant] would not have been able to use her bedroom either. Construction workers would have been walking in and out of the bedroom and flat, as well as along the scaffolding directly outside her window, further disrupting her privacy. This is what influenced [two of the tenants] to move out at the end of August, instead of staying at the property longer to secure new tenants.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have not found any evidence which supports the claim that the landlord misled the tenants and took advantage of them, breaching their quiet enjoyment of the premises. I accept landlord’s submission the work was necessary and the level of disruption was justified in the circumstances. The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. I note that compensation has already been allowed for the loss of amenity, which is the best remedy where tenants cannot use the tenancy premises as expected.

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy and I had photos and some very short video clips from the tenants. I was also provided with written submissions and an affidavit. I have considered all the evidence, and in particular the landlord’s photos, and I find a small amount of additional cleaning was required for the oven, stove top, rangehood and microwave. The cleaner’s invoice is not itemised so I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me.
I also allow two hours for the owner’s time removing the window film and cleaning the windows afterwards. The tenants should have removed this before they moved out and the time claimed is reasonable. I also allow one hour compensation because the owner arranged to meet the person collecting the mattress. Again, this should have been removed before the end of the tenancy. I allow $25 an hour which is standard for claims by owners.

Should the tenants pay for damage?

The landlord has claimed the cost of painting walls, replacing a shower curtain, and replacing a lamp. The 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 tenants 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.
There is a claim for $80 for painting some of the walls after the tenancy ended. The landlord submitted this was necessary because of careless damage. The landlord provided photos showing scuffs and knocks in the stairwell, dark marks by the shoe rack by the front door, and a scrape from a hair clip attached to a curtain in the bedroom. The landlord said the marks could not be cleaned off and they were the result of careless damage. The tenants said they had not noticed the marks in the bedroom or by the front door during the tenancy, and any marks were fair wear and tear.
I have considered the photos. I find the marks in the stairwell to be fair wear and tear. Landlords have to expect there will be marks on the paint in hallways and stairwells because they are high use areas, and the walls get rubbed and bumped even with normal use. I find the other marks to be careless damage because it seems most likely to me the tenants would have noticed the first few marks and should have taken steps to stop further damage. I have allowed $40 for the repairs which seems reasonable to me.
The claim for a replacement shower curtain is not allowed. The landlord submitted that this was new at the start of the tenancy and too mouldy at the end of the tenancy to be used by the next tenant. The tenants submitted that shower curtains get mouldy through normal use and they should not have to pay for fair wear and tear. The photos do not show an excessive amount of mould and I am not persuaded there was damage. It seems most likely to me the landlord had the option of cleaning or replacing the curtain, and chose to replace it. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for a replacement lamp is dismissed. The landlord has not replaced this lamp - which was provided as a chattel and sat on the dining table – even though the tenancy ended three months ago. This means there is no invoice and the landlord cannot prove the claim.
The claim for the broken dish washer part was dismissed at the hearing. There is no invoice for this repair and the landlord said the dishwasher functions perfectly well, even though a corner broke off a small fitting. I find there is no loss to the landlord and this claim is dismissed. I also note the landlord has not proved careless or intentional damage. Other orders
The request for the refund of the Bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The tenants’ names are published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money from the bond at the end of the tenancy. Suppression was not allowed for the landlord in the October order, and so both names will be published. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011548 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4N, 51 Webb Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011548 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4N, 51 Webb Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants get compensation because of a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Should the tenants pay for damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants get compensation because of a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Should the tenants pay for damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions