What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4507331 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 4507331?

Kitchen Cupboards: $56.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4507331?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4507331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9072393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4507331 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 4507331?

Kitchen Cupboards: $56.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4507331?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4507331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9072393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4507331 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4507331 — net $56.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cupboards	$56.08	Repairs: Kitchen cupboards
Net award	$56.08
Bond	$2,070.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$56.08

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4507331 — net $56.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cupboards	$56.08	Repairs: Kitchen cupboards
Net award	$56.08
Bond	$2,070.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$56.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the bathroom vanity and walls is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $56.08 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,070.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $56.08 [The tenant/s]: $2,013.92

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a support person. The director of the landlord attended with a support person.
Both parties have filed an application. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenants want their bond refunded to them.
The landlord in the tenancy agreement is [the landlord/s]. The landlord and tenant agreed to the amendment of the landlord’s application to this entity. This was needed because the landlord originally made the application in his own individual name rather than in the contracting company’s name.

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 RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances.
It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord says that there was mineral residue left in the toilet, there was hair in the drain in the shower and the floors throughout needed vacuuming/mopping. Photographs of the toilet and hair were provided together with a video showing what appeared to be pet hair coming out of the carpet on the stairs when rubbed.
The tenants say they spent a considerable time cleaning the property. They also had professional cleaners undertake work and had professionals come and clean the carpet. They provided evidence of this. They say the property was reasonably clean and tidy.
Overall, I find the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. The cleaning that has been claimed for and evidenced by the landlord is minor. While some areas the landlord may have wanted to improve this does not mean the cost of doing so is recoverable from the tenants. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
Objectively, on the basis of the evidence presented these tenants left the premises generally reasonably clean. That is all the law requires of them.

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 2019, 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 should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off (depreciation).
The landlord claims the following damage occurred during the course of the tenancy: a. Damage to the bottom of the vanity in bathroom – fix and replacement costs b. Stickers left on the kitchen cupboards from baby proofing – this required cleaning c. Damage left by picture hooks – patch/paint d. Damage left by mounting a TV – paint Vanity
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500 for damage to the base of the vanity in the bathroom.
The landlord provided a loss adjuster report. The report sets out that the writer’s assessment that the damage has been caused by a sudden and unforeseen event resulting from bathroom flooding and that the MDF vanity has failed at floor level.
The tenants say that the damage was caused by a leak from the shower causing the flooding. They say they told the landlord about this at an inspection in August 2022.
The landlord says he reported the claim to the insurer at that point but then decided to wait to the end of the tenancy before progressing the claim. His insurer told him he could do that. He says he has not yet finalised the insurance position and he is waiting for this decision prior to accepting the insurance. No replacement to the vanity has been done. The property is presently being used as an Air BnB before a new tenant moves in.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. However, on the basis of the evidence presented I find it more likely than not that the damage was caused accidentally.
I find that the best evidence is that this damage was caused by a single event. I accept the evidence presented in the loss adjuster’s report that vanity overflow is the probable cause. This is supported by the fact that the vanity does not have an overflow drain which would allow water to drain away if a tap was left on.
Tenants are not liable for accidental damage. The claim is therefore dismissed.
Even if I am wrong in this, I would not have awarded the landlord the excess as claimed there is no proof of any actual loss arising as at the date of the hearing. The vanity has not been replaced and the insurance has not been claimed. I am not satisfied that the vanity will actually be replaced and the landlord will suffer an actual loss. Hooks in walls
The landlord says he had to remove two hooks in the kitchen. He then filled and painted the patch. The landlord says that under the heat pump hooks have been removed and this took off part of the plaster and paint.
The tenants say that the hooks under the heat pump were the landlords and some of the peeled paint was already there. They say they asked if they could take down some of the hooks and when they did this, they accidentally removed some of the paint. Photographs provided to the Tribunal show a photo montage of many small photographs on this wall at the start of the tenancy. The tenants say that the two hooks in the kitchen were theirs.
Attaching pictures to a wall using picture hooks is a normal part of residential living so, in my view, the hooks in the kitchen are “fair wear and tear” and not damage. This is particularly so in the light of the fact there are only two picture hooks and they are neat and tidy. They are also positioned on a wall where there are numerous other pictures.
Turning to the area under the heat pump I find that the landlord has not proven what damage was caused by the removal of hooks and what damage was existing at the start of the tenancy. In any event, in so far as the tenants admitted to removing the hooks, given the damage evidenced and the way the damage occurred, I find this would more likely than not be accidental damage.
This part of the claim is dismissed. TV bracket
The landlord says that the tenants mounted a TV on the wall and when this was removed they patched and painted the area. The landlord says the paint work was not good enough because the tenants used the wrong finish paint.
The tenants say that the wall was repaired to a good enough state and that the landlord’s photograph does not show the issue which is being claimed for.
I find that the evidence provided by the landlord is not sufficiently clear to establish that the tenants are liable for the repainting of this wall.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Baby proofing the kitchen
A baby proofing solution used by the tenants in the kitchen left a number of foam like stickers which can clearly be seen in the photographs presented by the landlords.
The tenants do not dispute that they added these devices but they say they should have been allowed time to clean them off themselves.
I accept that in not removing the baby proofing fully the tenants have caused damage which is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The placement of the baby proofing devices would have been intentional.
Tenants do not have right to return to a property to clean or repair it once a tenancy has ended.
The sum sought by the landlord is $56.08 (being $30 for an hour of labour and $26.08 in materials). I consider this to be a reasonable sum and award this amount.
The landlord has received no betterment in cleaning off the residue, so it is not appropriate to apply depreciation.
I note that this part of the landlord’s claim might also have been dealt with as a claim in respect of the tenants’ obligation to clean. My decision would have been the same had I made the decision pursuant to that obligation. Neither party has been prejudiced by me dealing with it as a claim for damage. Suppression and filing fee
Both parties filed an application. Each party has had partial success. Each party is therefore to bear the cost of their own filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression. Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings. In the present case, the tenant has been substantially successful. I have therefore ordered suppression of their identifying details.
The landlord has not been substantially successful. I have considered if I should grant the landlord suppression having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA. A difficulty here is that the landlord’s corporate name mirrors the precise location of the tenancy address. Not supressing the landlord’s name could therefore lead to the identification of the tenants. I therefore also award the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4507331 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4507331 — Property damage

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