What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4452000 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 4452000?

Cleaning: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4452000?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4452000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9163293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4452000 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 4452000?

Cleaning: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4452000?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4452000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9163293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4452000 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4452000 — net $1,540.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings
Cleaning	$540.50	Cleaning
Net award	$1,540.50
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4452000 — net $1,540.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings
Cleaning	$540.50	Cleaning
Net award	$1,540.50
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1540.50 [The tenant/s]: $839.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At a case management conference on 24 March 2023, the parties clarified the claims each was making against the other.
The tenancy the subject of this application started on 8 July 2022 and came to an end on 19 October 2022. The landlord claims damages from the tenants for cleaning and repairs. He claims that the tenants: a) permanently damaged a couch that had to be replaced, b) left a brown residue on the bathroom extractor fan, c) left black marks on the walls, d) destroyed a rug, and e) did not clean the oven.
The landlord was also claiming damages for meth remediation but, during the case management conference, that claim was abandoned.
The tenants want their bond returned. They also claim damages for a breach of the obligation of quiet enjoyment. This claim relates to various renovations at the property. They accept that their cleaner may have damaged the couch. They accept some responsibility for damage but say that discussions with the landlord fell apart after the landlord accused them of meth use, which they adamantly deny.
I deal first with the tenant’s claim and then the landlord’s claim. 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 s 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See se 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Before the tenants moved in, they were unaware of any proposed renovations. They claim there was disruption caused by ongoing renovations, the details of which are: a) Not long after the tenant moved in, the tenant heard a contractor sanding their front door. She asked the contractor what he was doing. He said they were sanding and repainting all the front doors in the complex, repainting all the common areas and replacing the files in the front entranceway. Other contractors were there who said they were installing fibre. b) According to the tenants, these works went on through the duration of the tenancy, Monday to Saturday, all day. c) The tenant’s evidence was that this caused ongoing disruption to them. The works created noise from drilling, sanding, skills saws and power saws and the noise of contractors having their lunch. d) At one point the tenants claim they lost access to the front of the building; you could only access from the rear of the building. This meant the tenants lost parcels that were meant to be sent to them. e) This was particularly stressful for the tenants because one of them had undergone a major operations and needed to recover. f) The tenants also complain they were falsely accused by the Body Corp of leaving the door to the pool /gym open, which they denied. g) The tenants showed the tribunal a photograph taken of their balcony from behind, showing some construction works behind the building.
The tenant’s evidence was that they complained to the landlord but the landlord said the works were being done by the body corporate and that he did not have any control over that. The tenant produced an email dated 4 October, towards the end of the tenancy, complaining about the construction issues “from day dot”.
The landlord’s evidence in reply is: a) Access to the front door was never stopped. b) The work that was being done was merely painting of the rails and the front doors and installing fibre over a few days. c) The landlords say the repainting of the complex in fact happened two years prior. d) The landlords say the work was all done in council hours and that the work to the front door would have taken two days. e) The landlords did not tell the tenants about the work happening before the tenancy started because the landlord claims he was unaware. f) The landlord claims he received numerous complaints via the body corporate of fighting late at night from the tenant’s unit.
The landlord is essentially denying the works were disruptive as claimed by the tenants.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standard of proof. That means that it is for the tenants to establish the facts of their claim on “the balance of probabilities”. I must ascertain whether what they claim is more probable than not. Contemporaneous documents, emails and photographs are often important corroborative evidence to assist the Tribunal in determining what took place. Bare oral assertions can sometimes be inadequate evidence.
Here, there was little evidence corroborating the level of works and disruption alleged by the tenant. I accept there were some works taking place but there is not enough evidence for me to reach a conclusion the level of works and disruption were at the level claimed by the tenants. Had there been the alleged level of disruption claimed by the tenants, I would have expected to see multiple emails or messages complaining about the same. The only email produced was dated well towards the end of the tenancy.
I find that any disruption that has taken place in this case falls well short of “harassment”, as that phrase is defined above. I therefore dismiss this aspect of the claim.

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 the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that the oven was not clean, and the tiles and bathroom fan were unclean.
The tenants had arranged for a cleaner to clean the property at the end of the tenancy, but more cleaning was required.
There was a conversation between the parties where these additional aspects were pointed out by the landlord to the tenant after the tenancy had come to an end. By that stage, the landlord was not willing to allow the tenant’s cleaner back into the property.
The tenants do not deny that additional cleaning was required to clean the oven and the fan. They say however that the sum of $540.50 is unreasonable because they were willing to get a cleaner to do that work and indeed had already paid a cleaner to do the work.
The obligation of the tenants was to return the premises to the landlord in a clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. I disagree with the tenants that there should be no charge because the tenant’s cleaner was able to do the work after the tenancy came to an end. The landlord was entitled at the end of the tenancy to refuse any further access to the premises.
I consider the condition of the oven, tiles and extractor fan to fall below the standard of reasonably clean and I accept that cleaning was required. I accept and find that the charge that was incurred by the landlord and order above was a reasonable charge for that work.
The amount ordered is proved.

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.
The following damage was alleged caused during the tenancy, according to the landlord: a) The tenants ruined a leather couch, two years old at the point of purchase. The leather couch had been brown, and there were splatters that looked like oil or some product had been spilled or sprayed on it. The landlord claims he has purchased another couch for $3,600, second hand. He sold the couch the tenants were using for $500. No corroborating evidence of these figures was provided. b) The tenants ruined a rug, which was covered in some sort of oil at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the rug was a cream colour at the outset of the tenancy, but by the end of the tenancy it was black. The landlord produced a photo during the hearing showing its underside was a blackish colour. No evidence of the underside of the rug was provided from the beginning of the tenancy. c) Two of the walls were all covered in some sort of black soot that the landlord said looked like it had come from a fire inside the apartment. The landlord’s evidence is that it could not be cleaned off; it had to be sanded down and repainted. The landlord produced evidence of an alleged fire, located near to the soot marks from social media.
The tenants say in reply: a) In relation to the couch, they say they got their cleaner to try and clean the couch. They believe their cleaner may have damaged the couch in the cleaning process. They have already offered $500 to the landlord as a contribution to repairing the couch. They therefore accept the damage was either caused by them or their cleaner. They deny however they should be liable for the full replacement cost. They say same couch that was in the apartment can be bought from Farmers for $3999. They query how the landlord has paid as much as $3600 for a second-hand couch. b) The tenants say the black soot on the walls has come from the bar heater immediately underneath. In relation to the photograph produced by the landlord they say this is a salt lamp. They strongly deny lighting any fires in the apartment. c) In connection with the rug, the deny causing any damage and rely on the fact the alleged damage was to the underside of the rug. The Couch
I am satisfied the tenants caused damage to the couch, most likely, through their cleaner applying a spray to the couch. The damage is therefore more than fair wear and tear. In fixing a sum to be awarded in favour of the landlord, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the couch at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
Taking in account these factors I award the Landlord $1000 with respect to the damage to the couch. I am not prepared to award the full amount to the landlord because: a) The couch still had life in it, and indeed the landlord sold it for $500, b) The couch was two years old at the outset of the tenancy c) The lifespan of a couch is not infinite d) I have no corroborating evidence of the amount the landlord paid for the replacement couch. The rug and the walls
I dismiss these claims. There is inadequate evidence the underside of the rug was blackened by the tenants. There were no photos of its underside from the outset of the tenancy.
In relation to the walls, I find that the photographs produced by the landlord more probably than not depicts a salt lamp, not a fire. The bright light has a sharp edge and creates a pyramid shape, unlike a moving fire. Also, if there was a fire, you would be able to see smoke rising above it. There is no smoke in the photo.
I find that the block soot marks most likely come from the heater located immediately beneath those same marks.
I find there is inadequate evidence that the tenants caused the black soot marks.
As both parties have had a measure of success, I consider each should be entitled to name suppression and neither party is entitled to refund of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4452000 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4452000 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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