What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4464421 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 4464421?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4464421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4464421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9327189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4464421 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 4464421?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4464421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4464421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9327189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 50 Taharoto Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4464421 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4464421 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Net award	$50.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$50.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Queen Street Realty And Yang Zhang $50.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On August 22, 2023, both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Zhang appeared before me as the landlord’s agent.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Issues in dispute
On 22 December 2022, the parties participated in a mediation. The mediation proved to be productive as most of the disputes were resolved.
The outstanding claims against the tenant are: a. Damage to the garage carpet. The cost of repair is $69 b. Damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms (a hole is in the wall). The cost of repair is $230; and c. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The cost of cleaning is $192.63.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant submitted that they spent $1,200 cleaning the house at the end of the tenancy. They submitted that the premises was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
During the hearing, the landlord submitted additional photos to support her claim. The tenant did not oppose the admission of the additional photos.
To ensure the tenant could review the photos, I gave them time to examine the photos in case they needed to familiarise themselves with their contents.
The landlord told me in the hearing that one set of photos was taken during the exit inspection with the tenant present, while another set was taken after the landlord finished cleaning.
After reviewing the photos and considering submissions from both parties, my view is that the premises was generally clean, but a few areas still needed more attention. For instance, the garage needed to be dusted, and the utensil tray had stains that needed to be removed.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, the landlord's application for a cleaning expense reimbursement of $192.63 was unjustified as the landlord did not need to re- clean or clean on top of what the tenant had already done.
I order the tenant to reimburse $50 to the landlord for cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed the following damages: a. Damage to the garage carpet. The cost of repair is $69; and b. Damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms (a hole is in the wall). The cost of repairing the wall is $230. Garage carpet
The landlord acknowledges that the carpet was not damaged but came off the glue. The landlord agrees that the solution is to apply glue on the ground and then put the carpet on the glue. No replacement of the carpet is necessary. The landlord’s contention on this issue is that the tenant should have put the carpet back to what it was.
I struggle to understand the landlord's reasoning because the landlord acknowledges that the tenant did not deliberately damage the carpet, yet the landlord contends that the damage exceeds what is considered fair wear and tear.
In my view, the damage is fair wear and tear because the carpet was not damaged, only came off the glue on the ground. The landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the carpet.
Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms.
Both parties agree that the hole in the wall behind the door, approximately the width of a dollar coin, was caused by the lack of a door stopper.
The landlord acknowledges that there is no door stopper but argues that she is not legally obligated to provide one. She also notes that when she began managing the property a month after the tenant moved in, she observed scratches on the walls but no holes. The landlord did not take any photographs.
The property owner did not complete a pre-tenancy inspection report either.
The tenant denies any responsibility for the hole in the wall and has submitted the following: a. Upon moving into the property, there was already double-sided tape in the area where the hole was. b. Although they could not see the hole in the wall through double-sided tape, they did notice that the double-sided tape was not flat and appeared to be "dented". c. That the hole was present before they moved in.
The fact that the property owner did not conduct a pre-tenancy inspection is significant. This is because the tenant stated in evidence that the hole was likely concealed behind the double-sided tape. The tenant said they refrained from removing the double-sided tape because it would damage the paint.
After considering the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was responsible for the hole in the wall during the tenancy for three reasons: a. That there was no pre-tenancy inspection report; b. The hole was covered by double-sided tape and appeared to be “dented”; and c. I could not rule out fair wear and tear if the landlord did not have door stoppers installed to prevent the door locks from damaging the walls.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim under this hearing is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties have successfully argued their case. The costs lie where they fall. Name suppression
I do not consider that the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I decline to order suppression.
I consider that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I order the suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4464421 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Net award	$50.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$50.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Queen Street Realty And Yang Zhang $50.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On August 22, 2023, both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Zhang appeared before me as the landlord’s agent.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Issues in dispute
On 22 December 2022, the parties participated in a mediation. The mediation proved to be productive as most of the disputes were resolved.
The outstanding claims against the tenant are: a. Damage to the garage carpet. The cost of repair is $69 b. Damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms (a hole is in the wall). The cost of repair is $230; and c. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The cost of cleaning is $192.63.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant submitted that they spent $1,200 cleaning the house at the end of the tenancy. They submitted that the premises was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
During the hearing, the landlord submitted additional photos to support her claim. The tenant did not oppose the admission of the additional photos.
To ensure the tenant could review the photos, I gave them time to examine the photos in case they needed to familiarise themselves with their contents.
The landlord told me in the hearing that one set of photos was taken during the exit inspection with the tenant present, while another set was taken after the landlord finished cleaning.
After reviewing the photos and considering submissions from both parties, my view is that the premises was generally clean, but a few areas still needed more attention. For instance, the garage needed to be dusted, and the utensil tray had stains that needed to be removed.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, the landlord's application for a cleaning expense reimbursement of $192.63 was unjustified as the landlord did not need to re- clean or clean on top of what the tenant had already done.
I order the tenant to reimburse $50 to the landlord for cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed the following damages: a. Damage to the garage carpet. The cost of repair is $69; and b. Damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms (a hole is in the wall). The cost of repairing the wall is $230. Garage carpet
The landlord acknowledges that the carpet was not damaged but came off the glue. The landlord agrees that the solution is to apply glue on the ground and then put the carpet on the glue. No replacement of the carpet is necessary. The landlord’s contention on this issue is that the tenant should have put the carpet back to what it was.
I struggle to understand the landlord's reasoning because the landlord acknowledges that the tenant did not deliberately damage the carpet, yet the landlord contends that the damage exceeds what is considered fair wear and tear.
In my view, the damage is fair wear and tear because the carpet was not damaged, only came off the glue on the ground. The landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the carpet.
Accordingly, I dismiss this claim. Damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms.
Both parties agree that the hole in the wall behind the door, approximately the width of a dollar coin, was caused by the lack of a door stopper.
The landlord acknowledges that there is no door stopper but argues that she is not legally obligated to provide one. She also notes that when she began managing the property a month after the tenant moved in, she observed scratches on the walls but no holes. The landlord did not take any photographs.
The property owner did not complete a pre-tenancy inspection report either.
The tenant denies any responsibility for the hole in the wall and has submitted the following: a. Upon moving into the property, there was already double-sided tape in the area where the hole was. b. Although they could not see the hole in the wall through double-sided tape, they did notice that the double-sided tape was not flat and appeared to be "dented". c. That the hole was present before they moved in.
The fact that the property owner did not conduct a pre-tenancy inspection is significant. This is because the tenant stated in evidence that the hole was likely concealed behind the double-sided tape. The tenant said they refrained from removing the double-sided tape because it would damage the paint.
After considering the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was responsible for the hole in the wall during the tenancy for three reasons: a. That there was no pre-tenancy inspection report; b. The hole was covered by double-sided tape and appeared to be “dented”; and c. I could not rule out fair wear and tear if the landlord did not have door stoppers installed to prevent the door locks from damaging the walls.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim under this hearing is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties have successfully argued their case. The costs lie where they fall. Name suppression
I do not consider that the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I decline to order suppression.
I consider that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I order the suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4464421 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 50 Taharoto Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4464421 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 50 Taharoto Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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