What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4445860 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4445860?

Cleaning: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $495.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $285.52 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,076.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4445860?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4445860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9664517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4445860 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4445860?

Cleaning: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $495.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $285.52 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,076.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4445860?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4445860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9664517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4445860 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4445860 — net $2,337.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15/05/2023	$1,076.43	Rent arrears to 15/05/2023
Water rates to end of tenancy	$68.00	Water rates to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$391.00	Cleaning
Compensation for carpet damage	$495.93	Compensation for carpet damage
Lock/key replacement	$285.52	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,337.32
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,337.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The owner name is amended to [The owner/s]
The application for a possession order is withdrawn.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,337.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,337.32 [The tenant/s]: $542.68

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing on behalf of both tenants and was represented by [The tenant’s representative/s]. [The property manager/s] attended for [The landlord/s] as agent for the landlord.
The tenants rented a brand new five-bedroom home from the landlord in January 2021.
The tenancy agreement records [The landlord/s] as agent for the landlord, owner. The agreement contains an error in the owner’s name. The parties advised that the company name for the owner of the property is [The owner/s]. A copy of the title deed confirming this was provided by the tenant. The owner’s name is amended accordingly.
The landlord applied for rent and water arrears and damage repairs on 28 November 2022.
This matter was first set down for hearing on 22 March 2023.
The landlord advised on that day that since the application was filed a 90-day notice was issued to end the tenancy on 23 March 2023 on the basis that the landlord wishes to put the house on the market. The landlord sought possession, however, no application for possession had been filed and the termination date had not yet arrived. The landlord also sought payment of water arrears.
The tenant disputed the rent arrears and advised that she had a counter claim for failure by the landlord to repair the shower and to repair a possible water leak which she claimed was the cause of high water bills.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to enable both parties to file further claims and evidence in support of these.
On 1 May 2023 the landlord filed a further claim for a possession order.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord filed further evidence in support of the claims.
The tenant did not file a counter claim or evidence prior to today’s hearing.
Both parties brought further evidence to the hearing today.
The application for a possession order is withdrawn as the tenants have vacated the premises. The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 15 May 2023.
The landlord seeks rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15 May 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing the tenant questioned whether two payments made by her mother had been accounted for and the landlord pointed to these in the rent summary. The amount is ordered as sought.
The landlord provided water rates invoices and a water summary. The landlord sought payment of $73.56 in water arrears. This amount is made up of $55.55 sought as a part payment for the initial invoice and $18.00 of balance outstanding. The amount of $55.55 is calculated as a portion of the first invoice, however, as no entry water meter reading was taken the Tribunal has taken a cautious approach and reduces this amount by 10% to $50.00. Therefore, the amount of $68.00 is ordered for outstanding water owed.

Did the tenant 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Photographs were provided. The tenant disputed the rubbish that the landlord claimed was left at the kerb and stated this belonged to another property. The tenant agreed that some rags were left inside and some rubbish was left in the yard area. The tenant provided a video taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice from [The cleaner/s] for $782.00. The description stated “Deep clean full house”. Having considered the evidence provided by both parties the Tribunal finds that some further cleaning was required particularly to the bathroom areas, the oven and some rubbish to be removed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but that a full house deep clean goes beyond what was required. Therefore, the Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse half of the cleaning invoice being $391.00.
The tenant agreed that she did not return all the keys. The landlord advised that due to the nature of the key the cylinder required replacement. The landlord provided an invoice for $285.52 from [The key company]. The amount is ordered as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
This premises were new at the beginning of this tenancy. The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to paintwork on walls (a) In support of this claim the landlord provided a copy of an inspection report dated November 2022, some photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and some photographs taken after the painter commenced work. No detailed final inspection report was completed by the landlord. The property manager stated that he asked the tenant to touch up the paintwork by using stain blocker, undercoat and topcoat and that she was to check with him first. He claims that she did not do this and touched up the marks without following his instructions leaving worse marks on the wall. The landlord claimed that a full repaint of the premises was required. (b) The tenant disputed liability for damage to the walls and claimed that the damage was not beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant denied doing paint touch ups at the end of the tenancy and claimed that her mother cleaned the walls at the end of the tenancy to remove the marks. The tenant provided a video walk through of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. (c) I have considered the evidence provided. The inspection in November 2022 records some wear and tear marks on the walls and some drawing marks by the children on two bedroom walls. Neither the landlord or tenant photographs and video at the end of the tenancy show any obvious marks beyond wear and tear. The children’s drawings are not visible. The photographs provided by the landlord which show obvious marks are taken after the painter has begun touch up work and put undercoat on the patches, so the Tribunal is not able to ascertain what the walls looked like prior. (d) I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved to the required standard that the tenant has damaged the walls beyond fair wear and tear. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Damage to Carpet (a) In support of this claim the landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing some bright green marks and some stains on the carpet. (b) The tenant agreed that there were some marks on the carpet but disputed the repair amount claimed of $661.25. (c) Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the landlord has proved damage to the carpet beyond fair wear and tear, (d) An estimate for carpet repair in the sum of $661.25 was provided. As this is an estimate the Tribunal does not have evidence of the actual cost of the repair and therefore must take a conservative approach when ordering compensation. The amount is discounted by 25% and the Tribunal orders payment of the sum of $495.93 towards remedying carpet damage.
The tenant raised some set off claims at the hearing. The onus is on the tenant to prove these claims. The tenant claimed that there was a shower leak, the laminate floor in the kitchen lifted and the insinkerator needed repair. The landlord stated that they sent contractors to investigate the shower who found no leak but concluded that the tenants spilled water in the upstairs bathroom which overflowed into the ceiling, in respect of the kitchen floor the landlord again claimed this was caused by excess water. The insinkerator repair was arranged by the tenant. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the landlord failed to reasonably investigate and address maintenance issues at the premises. Therefore, no set off will be applied to the amounts ordered. Filing fee/suppression
Because the applicant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for a suppressions order. Both parties have had some success in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4445860 — net $2,337.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15/05/2023	$1,076.43	Rent arrears to 15/05/2023
Water rates to end of tenancy	$68.00	Water rates to end of tenancy
Cleaning	$391.00	Cleaning
Compensation for carpet damage	$495.93	Compensation for carpet damage
Lock/key replacement	$285.52	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,337.32
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,337.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The owner name is amended to [The owner/s]
The application for a possession order is withdrawn.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,337.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,337.32 [The tenant/s]: $542.68

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing on behalf of both tenants and was represented by [The tenant’s representative/s]. [The property manager/s] attended for [The landlord/s] as agent for the landlord.
The tenants rented a brand new five-bedroom home from the landlord in January 2021.
The tenancy agreement records [The landlord/s] as agent for the landlord, owner. The agreement contains an error in the owner’s name. The parties advised that the company name for the owner of the property is [The owner/s]. A copy of the title deed confirming this was provided by the tenant. The owner’s name is amended accordingly.
The landlord applied for rent and water arrears and damage repairs on 28 November 2022.
This matter was first set down for hearing on 22 March 2023.
The landlord advised on that day that since the application was filed a 90-day notice was issued to end the tenancy on 23 March 2023 on the basis that the landlord wishes to put the house on the market. The landlord sought possession, however, no application for possession had been filed and the termination date had not yet arrived. The landlord also sought payment of water arrears.
The tenant disputed the rent arrears and advised that she had a counter claim for failure by the landlord to repair the shower and to repair a possible water leak which she claimed was the cause of high water bills.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to enable both parties to file further claims and evidence in support of these.
On 1 May 2023 the landlord filed a further claim for a possession order.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord filed further evidence in support of the claims.
The tenant did not file a counter claim or evidence prior to today’s hearing.
Both parties brought further evidence to the hearing today.
The application for a possession order is withdrawn as the tenants have vacated the premises. The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 15 May 2023.
The landlord seeks rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15 May 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing the tenant questioned whether two payments made by her mother had been accounted for and the landlord pointed to these in the rent summary. The amount is ordered as sought.
The landlord provided water rates invoices and a water summary. The landlord sought payment of $73.56 in water arrears. This amount is made up of $55.55 sought as a part payment for the initial invoice and $18.00 of balance outstanding. The amount of $55.55 is calculated as a portion of the first invoice, however, as no entry water meter reading was taken the Tribunal has taken a cautious approach and reduces this amount by 10% to $50.00. Therefore, the amount of $68.00 is ordered for outstanding water owed.

Did the tenant 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Photographs were provided. The tenant disputed the rubbish that the landlord claimed was left at the kerb and stated this belonged to another property. The tenant agreed that some rags were left inside and some rubbish was left in the yard area. The tenant provided a video taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice from [The cleaner/s] for $782.00. The description stated “Deep clean full house”. Having considered the evidence provided by both parties the Tribunal finds that some further cleaning was required particularly to the bathroom areas, the oven and some rubbish to be removed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but that a full house deep clean goes beyond what was required. Therefore, the Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse half of the cleaning invoice being $391.00.
The tenant agreed that she did not return all the keys. The landlord advised that due to the nature of the key the cylinder required replacement. The landlord provided an invoice for $285.52 from [The key company]. The amount is ordered as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
This premises were new at the beginning of this tenancy. The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to paintwork on walls (a) In support of this claim the landlord provided a copy of an inspection report dated November 2022, some photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and some photographs taken after the painter commenced work. No detailed final inspection report was completed by the landlord. The property manager stated that he asked the tenant to touch up the paintwork by using stain blocker, undercoat and topcoat and that she was to check with him first. He claims that she did not do this and touched up the marks without following his instructions leaving worse marks on the wall. The landlord claimed that a full repaint of the premises was required. (b) The tenant disputed liability for damage to the walls and claimed that the damage was not beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant denied doing paint touch ups at the end of the tenancy and claimed that her mother cleaned the walls at the end of the tenancy to remove the marks. The tenant provided a video walk through of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. (c) I have considered the evidence provided. The inspection in November 2022 records some wear and tear marks on the walls and some drawing marks by the children on two bedroom walls. Neither the landlord or tenant photographs and video at the end of the tenancy show any obvious marks beyond wear and tear. The children’s drawings are not visible. The photographs provided by the landlord which show obvious marks are taken after the painter has begun touch up work and put undercoat on the patches, so the Tribunal is not able to ascertain what the walls looked like prior. (d) I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved to the required standard that the tenant has damaged the walls beyond fair wear and tear. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Damage to Carpet (a) In support of this claim the landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing some bright green marks and some stains on the carpet. (b) The tenant agreed that there were some marks on the carpet but disputed the repair amount claimed of $661.25. (c) Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the landlord has proved damage to the carpet beyond fair wear and tear, (d) An estimate for carpet repair in the sum of $661.25 was provided. As this is an estimate the Tribunal does not have evidence of the actual cost of the repair and therefore must take a conservative approach when ordering compensation. The amount is discounted by 25% and the Tribunal orders payment of the sum of $495.93 towards remedying carpet damage.
The tenant raised some set off claims at the hearing. The onus is on the tenant to prove these claims. The tenant claimed that there was a shower leak, the laminate floor in the kitchen lifted and the insinkerator needed repair. The landlord stated that they sent contractors to investigate the shower who found no leak but concluded that the tenants spilled water in the upstairs bathroom which overflowed into the ceiling, in respect of the kitchen floor the landlord again claimed this was caused by excess water. The insinkerator repair was arranged by the tenant. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the landlord failed to reasonably investigate and address maintenance issues at the premises. Therefore, no set off will be applied to the amounts ordered. Filing fee/suppression
Because the applicant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for a suppressions order. Both parties have had some success in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4445860 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4445860 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions