What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080488?

The tribunal order states: Steven Harper and Clare Louise Harper must pay Mosaic Property

How much money was awarded in case 5080488?

Cleaning: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080488?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11317995-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080488?

The tribunal order states: Steven Harper and Clare Louise Harper must pay Mosaic Property

How much money was awarded in case 5080488?

Cleaning: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080488?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11317995-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

154 Dunns Crossing Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080488 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080488 — net $786.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 January 2025	$3,300.00	Rent arrears to 8 January 2025
Clean council bins	$126.50	Clean council bins
Net award	$786.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$786.50

Order

Steven Harper and Clare Louise Harper must pay Mosaic Property Management Limited as agent for Hamneet Jaggi and Ankit Sethi $786.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6481283-004) to Mosaic Property Management Limited as agent for Hamneet Jaggi and Ankit Sethi immediately.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of cleaning, cleaning a blind, lawn mowing, and paint repairs is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of lawn irrigation fixtures and fittings is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Stent and Ms Barnes represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy which ended on 8 January 2025. They vacated the tenancy on 6 December 2024, so the period at issue is about one month.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence, and each gave oral evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. The tenants’ application
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In their written application the tenants referred to financial hardship as a reason for wanting to end their tenancy early. They said there had been a change in Mr Harper’s work (he is self-employed) with a reduced income; the house was large, and they had high power costs in winter; and they needed security because the owner of the premises was marketing them for sale.
At the hearing, the tenants referred to other matters. They included an invasion of their privacy because the owner’s land agent insisted on holding open homes; the owners asking them why they had so many boxes after conducting an inspection; and the fact an open home was held soon after they handed back the keys on 6 December 2024.
The tenants said they wanted to remain in the same location due to their children being settled in schools and because they had supportive friends and were happy there, so they found a smaller place to rent sooner than they expected (in a tight rental market) and accepted a new tenancy before this tenancy ended.
An application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts. In this case there were no unforeseen circumstances to justify the Tribunal reducing the term of the tenancy.
A change in work availability is not an unforeseen change for a self-employed person in known difficult economic times such as the present. Nor is the desire to find a smaller, cheaper home to rent. That open homes were conducted might have been annoying and intrusive but was also not an unforeseen change in circumstances. The owner was entitled to list the premises for sale and to have reasonable access to facilitate the sale. The RTA provides tenant protections for that: either the sale would have been subject to the fixed term tenancy, or if the tenancy became periodic, the landlord would have had to give the required period of notice.
That the tenants found a property they wished to rent for the reasons they gave is understandable, but it is not sufficient to establish an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
The tenants’ application does not therefore pass the first statutory hurdle. I need not therefore consider the respective hardship of the parties.
Even if the tenants had succeeded, the Tribunal usually awards a landlord compensation for the loss of the contract when reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy, often equivalent to the amount of the bond. Had it done so here, the net result would have been no different. The compensation would have equated to roughly 4 weeks’ rent, the period between when the tenants vacated and when the tenancy was due to end. The landlord’s application
The tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy - $3,300.00.
At the end of a tenancy a 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.
Both parties provided photographic evidence. The Tribunal decides claims for cleaning objectively, not on the subjective opinion of either party.
Tenants are not required to leave the premises clean to a level where a new tenancy can commence. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The photos produced in evidence, objectively viewed, show that the tenants met their statutory responsibility in this case. Some additional minor cleaning was required, but they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The quotation for cleaning the blind in the living room notes ‘it’s hard from the pics to even see the damage...’. I agree.
I dismiss the claims for cleaning ($258.75) and for cleaning the blind ($120.00).
The tenants were unaware that they needed to clean the council bins. They were provided the opportunity to attend to outstanding matters after they handed back the keys but did not do so. I find the claim for cleaning the bins proved. The quoted cost is $126.50.
I dismiss the claim for lawn mowing. The photos taken at the final inspection shortly after the tenants vacated show that the lawns were reasonably tidy. While another month has passed, the landlord’s representative said that the new tenants will not take possession for a few more weeks, though they are paying rent. So at least part of the lawn mowing cost will relate to the period after this tenancy ended and the new tenants take possession. It is likely that the work will be done at that stage; Ms Stent confirmed that the lawn work had not yet been done.
I do not find that the tenants failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy. They gave evidence about the difficulties they experienced with the lawns during the tenancy and the costs they incurred reseeding parts of the lawn, work they said the owner thanked them for.
The lawn mowing cost is one properly born by the owner in this case.
The landlord withdrew a claim for the purchase of lawn irrigation fixtures and fittings after I explained that the Tribunal would not award compensation for something that was not a tenant responsibility.
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.
The landlord has claimed for paint repairs to walls and other areas throughout the premises and for areas in the garage the tenant painted but with a slightly mismatched colour.
The tenants gave evidence that they went to some efforts to obtain the correct colour match. I accept that.
Generally, the work to be done is to remedy small dents and marks that would objectively be considered fair wear and tear. The tenants do not have to leave the premises in perfect condition. I find that they left the premises generally in a very good condition.
While the paint match in the garage is not perfect, a repair is probably more desirable than necessary. Even if a tenant responsibility, I cannot isolate the cost of the garage wall work from the invoiced work generally. I dismiss this part of the landlord’s application. Result
The tenants’ application to have the term of the tenancy reduced is dismissed. There was no unforeseen change in their circumstances that would justify the Tribunal ending the tenancy early. And even if it did, the compensation the Tribunal would award the landlord would not achieve any gain for the tenants. They remain liable for rent to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for compensation for cleaning and other costs is dismissed save for the cost of cleaning the council rubbish bins.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full.
The tenants must pay the landlord $786.50 for the balance of the rent arrears and the blind cleaning fee.
I make no award of the filing fees. Neither party has been wholly or mostly successful. Name suppression
The tenants sought a name suppression order. I make no order as their application is unsuccessful and they have not been fully successful in defending the landlord’s application against them – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080488 — net $786.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 January 2025	$3,300.00	Rent arrears to 8 January 2025
Clean council bins	$126.50	Clean council bins
Net award	$786.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$786.50

Order

Steven Harper and Clare Louise Harper must pay Mosaic Property Management Limited as agent for Hamneet Jaggi and Ankit Sethi $786.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6481283-004) to Mosaic Property Management Limited as agent for Hamneet Jaggi and Ankit Sethi immediately.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of cleaning, cleaning a blind, lawn mowing, and paint repairs is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of lawn irrigation fixtures and fittings is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Stent and Ms Barnes represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy which ended on 8 January 2025. They vacated the tenancy on 6 December 2024, so the period at issue is about one month.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence, and each gave oral evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. The tenants’ application
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In their written application the tenants referred to financial hardship as a reason for wanting to end their tenancy early. They said there had been a change in Mr Harper’s work (he is self-employed) with a reduced income; the house was large, and they had high power costs in winter; and they needed security because the owner of the premises was marketing them for sale.
At the hearing, the tenants referred to other matters. They included an invasion of their privacy because the owner’s land agent insisted on holding open homes; the owners asking them why they had so many boxes after conducting an inspection; and the fact an open home was held soon after they handed back the keys on 6 December 2024.
The tenants said they wanted to remain in the same location due to their children being settled in schools and because they had supportive friends and were happy there, so they found a smaller place to rent sooner than they expected (in a tight rental market) and accepted a new tenancy before this tenancy ended.
An application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts. In this case there were no unforeseen circumstances to justify the Tribunal reducing the term of the tenancy.
A change in work availability is not an unforeseen change for a self-employed person in known difficult economic times such as the present. Nor is the desire to find a smaller, cheaper home to rent. That open homes were conducted might have been annoying and intrusive but was also not an unforeseen change in circumstances. The owner was entitled to list the premises for sale and to have reasonable access to facilitate the sale. The RTA provides tenant protections for that: either the sale would have been subject to the fixed term tenancy, or if the tenancy became periodic, the landlord would have had to give the required period of notice.
That the tenants found a property they wished to rent for the reasons they gave is understandable, but it is not sufficient to establish an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
The tenants’ application does not therefore pass the first statutory hurdle. I need not therefore consider the respective hardship of the parties.
Even if the tenants had succeeded, the Tribunal usually awards a landlord compensation for the loss of the contract when reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy, often equivalent to the amount of the bond. Had it done so here, the net result would have been no different. The compensation would have equated to roughly 4 weeks’ rent, the period between when the tenants vacated and when the tenancy was due to end. The landlord’s application
The tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy - $3,300.00.
At the end of a tenancy a 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.
Both parties provided photographic evidence. The Tribunal decides claims for cleaning objectively, not on the subjective opinion of either party.
Tenants are not required to leave the premises clean to a level where a new tenancy can commence. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The photos produced in evidence, objectively viewed, show that the tenants met their statutory responsibility in this case. Some additional minor cleaning was required, but they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The quotation for cleaning the blind in the living room notes ‘it’s hard from the pics to even see the damage...’. I agree.
I dismiss the claims for cleaning ($258.75) and for cleaning the blind ($120.00).
The tenants were unaware that they needed to clean the council bins. They were provided the opportunity to attend to outstanding matters after they handed back the keys but did not do so. I find the claim for cleaning the bins proved. The quoted cost is $126.50.
I dismiss the claim for lawn mowing. The photos taken at the final inspection shortly after the tenants vacated show that the lawns were reasonably tidy. While another month has passed, the landlord’s representative said that the new tenants will not take possession for a few more weeks, though they are paying rent. So at least part of the lawn mowing cost will relate to the period after this tenancy ended and the new tenants take possession. It is likely that the work will be done at that stage; Ms Stent confirmed that the lawn work had not yet been done.
I do not find that the tenants failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy. They gave evidence about the difficulties they experienced with the lawns during the tenancy and the costs they incurred reseeding parts of the lawn, work they said the owner thanked them for.
The lawn mowing cost is one properly born by the owner in this case.
The landlord withdrew a claim for the purchase of lawn irrigation fixtures and fittings after I explained that the Tribunal would not award compensation for something that was not a tenant responsibility.
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.
The landlord has claimed for paint repairs to walls and other areas throughout the premises and for areas in the garage the tenant painted but with a slightly mismatched colour.
The tenants gave evidence that they went to some efforts to obtain the correct colour match. I accept that.
Generally, the work to be done is to remedy small dents and marks that would objectively be considered fair wear and tear. The tenants do not have to leave the premises in perfect condition. I find that they left the premises generally in a very good condition.
While the paint match in the garage is not perfect, a repair is probably more desirable than necessary. Even if a tenant responsibility, I cannot isolate the cost of the garage wall work from the invoiced work generally. I dismiss this part of the landlord’s application. Result
The tenants’ application to have the term of the tenancy reduced is dismissed. There was no unforeseen change in their circumstances that would justify the Tribunal ending the tenancy early. And even if it did, the compensation the Tribunal would award the landlord would not achieve any gain for the tenants. They remain liable for rent to the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for compensation for cleaning and other costs is dismissed save for the cost of cleaning the council rubbish bins.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full.
The tenants must pay the landlord $786.50 for the balance of the rent arrears and the blind cleaning fee.
I make no award of the filing fees. Neither party has been wholly or mostly successful. Name suppression
The tenants sought a name suppression order. I make no order as their application is unsuccessful and they have not been fully successful in defending the landlord’s application against them – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080488 — Rent arrears at 154 Dunns Crossing Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080488 — Rent arrears at 154 Dunns Crossing Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

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