What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405789?

The tribunal order states: Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield to pay Birds Nest Property

How much money was awarded in case 5405789?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $296.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $107.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405789?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13235327-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405789?

The tribunal order states: Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield to pay Birds Nest Property

How much money was awarded in case 5405789?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $296.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $107.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405789?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13235327-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Greenhaven Drive, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405789 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405789 — net $639.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4	$107.41	Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4
Carpet cleaning	$207.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$296.75	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$639.16
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$639.16

Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield to pay Birds Nest Property Management Limited as agent for David and Sharlene Knight $639.16 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3344052-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Birds Nest Property Management Limited as agent for David and Sharlene Knight: $639.16 Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield: $1,740.84

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today. Ms Hancock and Ms Bird represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has 3 claims – the replacement of halogen light bulbs ($107.41); carpet cleaning ($207.00); and interior cleaning ($296.75).

The tenants’ application is a defence to the landlord’s claim. In addition, they seek exemplary damages for alleged misleading conduct by the landlord, an attempt to interfere with their rights, and the undermining of their mana causing stress and a negative impact on their health and well-being. The landlord’s application

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the 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 1 . The tenant must usually (though not always) replace light bulbs.

The landlord produced photos, an inspection report, and an invoice in support of its cleaning claims.

The tenant submitted that they left the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The tenants also provided some photographic evidence.

Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal looks to the objective evidence.

Here, the Tribunal finds that the premises were generally left in a good condition, but some further cleaning was reasonably required to meet the standard the law imposes on a tenant. That included emptying the firebox and cleaning the oven as well as other general cleaning.

That the final inspection was completed after the tenants had vacated, and not done with both parties present, does not negate the landlord’s claim.

The claim for carpet cleaning is also proved. The tenants kept a dog at the premises (which was consented to) and a cat (which apparently was not). Tenants are generally not required to have carpets professionally cleaned if vacuuming alone will mean they are left reasonably clean. But the Tribunal usually considers it reasonable for carpets to be professionally cleaned when 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) pets have been kept inside. That is to remove allergens that might cause issues for the next tenants and to remove the odours associated with the keeping of animals inside.

The landlord has recorded that all the lights were working in the lounge at the start of the tenancy, but 4 bulbs were not working at the end. The tenants said that the bulbs were already blown at the start of the tenancy something they addressed with their former property manager.

There is no evidence of any discussions on this issue. It seems odd that the tenants would go without 4 working light bulbs in the lounge for the 18 months’ duration of the tenancy. I find that the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing the light bulbs, since they probably were working as recorded, and stopped working during the tenancy. The tenants’ application

The tenants’ have sought exemplary damages for what they allege was a misleading initial property inspection report, for not agreeing to a joint exit inspection, and for discouraging them from lodging an application in the Tenancy Tribunal. They refer to a failure by the landlord to respect their rights and to uphold their dignity and respect.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the statutory considerations 2 . Those are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.

The evidence does not establish any misleading conduct by the landlord. Issues from the start of the tenancy should have been addressed then. If the landlord said that ‘a tenancy dispute is generally something most tenants wish to avoid’ that is simply an observation not a threat or a discouragement. Injured feelings do not attract exemplary damages (nor indeed an award of compensation).

The tenants have not proved any defined unlawful act by the landlord that would lead to an award of exemplary damages.

The tenants’ application is dismissed. 2 set out in section 109 RTA

Finally, the tenants provided photos of a door, apparently an issue from the start of the tenancy. As there is no tenant application before the Tribunal, I cannot address that. Result

The tenants will pay the landlord $639.16 from the bond which includes reimbursement of the filing fee.

The balance of the bond of $1,740.84 will be refunded to the tenants.

The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as their application and their defence to the landlord’s application are unsuccessful 3 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405789 — net $639.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4	$107.41	Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4
Carpet cleaning	$207.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$296.75	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$639.16
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$639.16

Order

Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield to pay Birds Nest Property Management Limited as agent for David and Sharlene Knight $639.16 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3344052-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Birds Nest Property Management Limited as agent for David and Sharlene Knight: $639.16 Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield: $1,740.84
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today. Ms Hancock and Ms Bird represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has 3 claims – the replacement of halogen light bulbs ($107.41); carpet cleaning ($207.00); and interior cleaning ($296.75).
The tenants’ application is a defence to the landlord’s claim. In addition, they seek exemplary damages for alleged misleading conduct by the landlord, an attempt to interfere with their rights, and the undermining of their mana causing stress and a negative impact on their health and well-being. The landlord’s application

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the 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 1 . The tenant must usually (though not always) replace light bulbs.
The landlord produced photos, an inspection report, and an invoice in support of its cleaning claims.
The tenant submitted that they left the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The tenants also provided some photographic evidence.
Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal looks to the objective evidence.
Here, the Tribunal finds that the premises were generally left in a good condition, but some further cleaning was reasonably required to meet the standard the law imposes on a tenant. That included emptying the firebox and cleaning the oven as well as other general cleaning.
That the final inspection was completed after the tenants had vacated, and not done with both parties present, does not negate the landlord’s claim.
The claim for carpet cleaning is also proved. The tenants kept a dog at the premises (which was consented to) and a cat (which apparently was not). Tenants are generally not required to have carpets professionally cleaned if vacuuming alone will mean they are left reasonably clean. But the Tribunal usually considers it reasonable for carpets to be professionally cleaned when 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) pets have been kept inside. That is to remove allergens that might cause issues for the next tenants and to remove the odours associated with the keeping of animals inside.
The landlord has recorded that all the lights were working in the lounge at the start of the tenancy, but 4 bulbs were not working at the end. The tenants said that the bulbs were already blown at the start of the tenancy something they addressed with their former property manager.
There is no evidence of any discussions on this issue. It seems odd that the tenants would go without 4 working light bulbs in the lounge for the 18 months’ duration of the tenancy. I find that the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing the light bulbs, since they probably were working as recorded, and stopped working during the tenancy. The tenants’ application
The tenants’ have sought exemplary damages for what they allege was a misleading initial property inspection report, for not agreeing to a joint exit inspection, and for discouraging them from lodging an application in the Tenancy Tribunal. They refer to a failure by the landlord to respect their rights and to uphold their dignity and respect.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the statutory considerations 2 . Those are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.
The evidence does not establish any misleading conduct by the landlord. Issues from the start of the tenancy should have been addressed then. If the landlord said that ‘a tenancy dispute is generally something most tenants wish to avoid’ that is simply an observation not a threat or a discouragement. Injured feelings do not attract exemplary damages (nor indeed an award of compensation).
The tenants have not proved any defined unlawful act by the landlord that would lead to an award of exemplary damages.
The tenants’ application is dismissed. 2 set out in section 109 RTA
Finally, the tenants provided photos of a door, apparently an issue from the start of the tenancy. As there is no tenant application before the Tribunal, I cannot address that. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $639.16 from the bond which includes reimbursement of the filing fee.
The balance of the bond of $1,740.84 will be refunded to the tenants.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as their application and their defence to the landlord’s application are unsuccessful 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405789 — Cleanliness at 45 Greenhaven Drive, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405789 — Cleanliness at 45 Greenhaven Drive, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions