What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4511933 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must

How much money was awarded in case 4511933?

Lightbulbs: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $4.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4511933?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4511933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4511933 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must

How much money was awarded in case 4511933?

Lightbulbs: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $4.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4511933?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4511933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4511933 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4511933 — net $212.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$4.31	Water rates
Cost of replacement keys	$30.00	Cost of replacement keys
Paint repair	$150.00	Paint repair
Cost of replacement light bulbs	$28.00	Cost of replacement light bulbs
Net award	$212.31
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$212.31

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4511933 — net $212.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$4.31	Water rates
Cost of replacement keys	$30.00	Cost of replacement keys
Paint repair	$150.00	Paint repair
Cost of replacement light bulbs	$28.00	Cost of replacement light bulbs
Net award	$212.31
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$212.31

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.
The tenants must file and serve a copy of their end-of-tenancy video by 8 September 2023.
[Tenants] must pay [Landlord] Family Trust $212.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 (5883997-007) immediately apportioned as follows: [Landlord] Family Trust: $212.31 [Tenants]: $3,227.69

Reasons

Introduction and issues for determination

The tenants attended the hearing in person. 1
The trustee attended the hearing for the trust.
The tenancy began on 1 August 2020 and ended on 3 February 2023.
On 26 February 2023, the tenants applied to the Tribunal for return of their bond and general damages.
On 2 March 2023, the trustee applied to the Tribunal for compensation for the cost of cleaning, getting keys cut, replacing lightbulbs, and repairing damage to the premises.
In the interests of delivering this decision in a timely way, these reasons will be brief. I have read the parties’ submissions, considered their documents, and reviewed their photographs, but do not go into detail about all of them.
The tenants submitted a video of the premises at the end of the tenancy on their phone. The Tribunal viewed it with the trustee’s approval. The trustee viewed it also. The tenants must file a copy of the video in the Tribunal within seven days for placing on the Tribunal file. They must also serve a copy on the trustee.
The trustee sought $4.31 for water rates. The tenants consented to the Tribunal ordering that they pay that amount. An order is made in that amount.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the tenants comply with their end of tenancy obligations to return the premises reasonably clean and free from rubbish, and return the keys and chattels? b. Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Did the tenants comply with their end of tenancy obligations?

At the end of their tenancy, tenants 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. 2 1 I heard this matter on 31 August 2023. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal’s general practice is to require tenants to replace standard light bulbs if they wear out.
The trustee proved that he paid $28.00 to replace four standard lightbulbs that the tenants had not replaced. A heat lamp-style bulb wore out during the tenancy. No order is made for that because it is not a standard bulb.
The tenants accepted that they might have misplaced three internal house keys.
It cost the trustee $20.00 to have two of the keys recut. He did not get the third lost key recut because he had an adequate number. The trustee wanted the tenants to pay his company’s invoice to the trust for the trustee’s travel and time. I decline to order that. Getting keys cut can be done in the ordinary course of a day when convenient. I order an additional $10.00 for the key that was lost but not recut because that was a loss to the trust notwithstanding that no monetary loss has been incurred yet. Cleaning and rubbish removal
As mentioned, at the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 3
Landlords must provide the premises to the tenants in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 4 Similarly, the tenants must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average objective observer. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, or hotel or motel standard. After a tenancy ends, the landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 5
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy to the required or remove the rubbish to the required standard. 3 s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA. 4 s 45(1)(a) of the RTA. 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
The landlord and the tenants produced photographs of the premises after the tenancy ended. The tenants produced the bulk of the still images and also provided a 10-minute video on one of their cell phones, which the Tribunal and the landlord viewed. 6 The landlord did not produce any photographs to show the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, so the Tribunal cannot contrast the cleanliness of the premises at the end of the tenancy to the cleanliness at the beginning detail. However, no particular issue arises because the tenants did not claim that the premises were not provided reasonably clean overall, albeit that the oven probably was not provided reasonably clean.
The photographs of the house’s interior taken at the end of the tenancy depict several instances of less than perfect cleanliness, such as the dishwasher door appearing to have light film (perhaps wipe marks left by a cleaning product), and small deposits of dust and detritus on a section of floor and in a drawer. The oven looks in need of a further wipe because there is wet residue dripping down its sides, possibly the result of recent cleaning; however, the oven was “not very clean” at the beginning of the tenancy. 7 The most significant cleaning oversights were perhaps an extractor fan that did not look recently cleaned and a shower trap that had not been opened and cleaned out.
The trustee complained about a stain on a bedroom carpet. However, the images I saw were consistent with the mark being merely a transitory wet patch from cleaning on the last day of the tenancy. I was not given a photograph confirmed to be taken on a different date to the end date of the tenancy, which would have confirmed one way or the other whether the mark was just transitory wet patch or a permanent stain. New tenants are in the premises and the trustee says the carpet is yet to be cleaned even though this tenancy ended about seven months ago. I put the possible carpet stain to one side because the trustee could not progress the matter further.
I adopt the persona of an average objective observer who is carefully considering and reporting on whether the interior of the premises was left reasonably clean overall. Having listened to the parties’ submissions, read their documents, and viewed all the photographs and the video, I would assess that the areas of uncleanliness within the house are few and far between and not serious. The impression I would form is that, generally, the premises appear clean. I would conclude that overall the tenants had left the premises reasonably clean. I would report accordingly.
It follows, I am not persuaded that the tenants failed to leave the interior of the house reasonably clean. 6 The tenants had not filed or served a copy of the video. Directions are made for that. 7 Property Inspection Report 10 August 2020.
The trustee claimed the tenants did not leave the exterior deck reasonably clean, blaming the tenants’ planters for staining the deck. The trustee provided an invoice from the trustee’s own company to the trust for $250.00 for water blasting.
The tenants say they were conscious and careful of the deck. By way of example, they had previously replaced one of the deck’s timbers that suffered an accidental burn mark. They do not accept the deck is not reasonably clean.
The tenants had two planter boxes on the deck. When they were removed, the deck was obviously coloured differently where they had been.
I have carefully looked at the photographs of the deck. The deck has areas of surface detritus that could be removed by water blasting. While the deck is coloured differently where the planters have been removed, that does not necessarily mean the deck in those areas is not reasonably clean. Discolouration is typical over time, the nature of it depending on exposure to natural and human- made phenomena such as rain, sun, and shade. Minute particles of dirt can get deposited in or on the wood and baked in. Algae-type micro-organisms can grow, creating a perceptible tinting on the wood. When objects are placed on wooden decks, they affect the colouring of the deck surface over time.
The colouring caused by the planter boxes being on the deck does not appear in greater need of water blasting than other parts of the deck that did not have planter boxes placed on them.
Tenants should not have to water blast exterior decks unless they have done something that required water blasting when otherwise it would not have been needed. I do not consider the placement and removal of the planter boxes made the decks unclean.
In conclusion, I am not persuaded the tenants did not leave the deck reasonably clean.
When they moved out, the tenants deliberately spread the compost they had accumulated for two-and-a-half years of the tenancy over an approximately two- by-one-metre sized section of garden. The compost had eggshells in it which was visually obvious. The tenants also left behind a bag of potting mix. The trustee considers these were rubbish and intends to employ his company to remove them.
I do not find that the compost and the potting mix were rubbish. The compost will do the grounds good rather than harm. The eggshells may not be cosmetically pleasing but they will break down naturally in time. Potting mix is useful and should not be thrown away either. The fact that the trustee has had seven months to remove the items but has not done so corroborates that interpretation. Conclusion
The landlord’s claims for the cost of cutting keys and replacing light bulbs is proven.
I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and free from rubbish.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Legal principles

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 tenants 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. 8
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. 9 The kitchen flooring
The most important item of damage for the trustee was damage to the kitchen flooring. A flooring company quoted $5,376.00 to replace it. However, the trust’s insurance company AMI is covering the damage, less the excess of $550.00.
The trustee described his reaction to the damage as follows: 10 When seeing the severe and widespread damages the tenants caused or permitted to cause to the kitchen and kitchen floors on the hand-over day Friday 3 Feb 2023, I was totally shocked. I pointed it straight away to Mr. [tenant’s surname], the tenant. The immense stress started to overwhelm my mind.
The tenants say that the damage is due to ordinary wear and tear. The trustee claims the tenants caused the damage carelessly by flooding the kitchen. 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 9 See Gary Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 10 Page 3-4 Landlord’s response submission.
The photographs are generally consistent with either ordinary fair wear and tear or a flooding event. However, there is no evidence that there was any flooding event. The tenants say, simply there was not one. The landlord has no evidence of misuse or a flooding event except the end result. The tenants say they looked after the kitchen and the floors deteriorated though ordinary use. If there had been a flood, they would have reported it. They had nothing to gain from concealing such an event.
The trustee emphasised the importance of the fact that AMI had paid him out $26,597.49 for the damage. AMI’s property assessors inspected the damage on site. He submits, if the damage were just fair wear and tear, AMI would not have paid out on his claim for cover. However, the Tribunal cannot give AMI’s assessors findings any significant weight because it is not privy to the information the trustee provided to AMI, or what other factors went into AMI’s decision to cover the damage.
In my view, there is a singular lack of evidence pointing to the tenants doing anything out of the ordinary to the floor. The trustee says the floors are seven to eight years’ old. In the photos, the flooring looks to have a relatively thin oak veneer glued over a softer wood, although the landlord says the flooring it is actually a kind of vinyl. If the flooring is of wooden laminate construction, it would probably not be recommended for use in kitchens, where there will naturally be a lot of moisture present. If the flooring is vinyl, it was approaching the end of its predicted lifespan of about 10 years.
On the evidence I have, I consider the damage to the flooring is more than likely to have been the result of fair wear and tear.
It follows, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the flooring damage was more than fair wear and tear. 11
The tenants accepted they damaged the paintwork of a high section of wall by taping party decorations up. When they removed the tape at the end of the tenancy, the residual adhesive stuck to the wall. The trustee’s company charged the trust $380.00 to repair the paintwork. The trustee did the work himself.
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. Paintwork has an anticipated useful lifespan of five years. That period has expired, but the damaged area was out of the way of ordinary traffic, so not prone to ordinary wear and tear. 11 I note in passing, the insurance pay-out is likely to have been greater than the depreciated value of the flooring.
Taking account of depreciation, I order the tenants to pay the landlord $150.00 towards the cost of repair.
The trustee alleged one of the bedrooms’ ceilings was damaged during the tenancy. The tenants said they have no knowledge of the ceiling damage at any time, whether before, during, or after the tenancy. The damage is minor and could easily not be overlooked. The trustee did not produce evidence to prove the damage in question was not present prior to the tenancy beginning. The usual evidence of this would be photographs. The property inspection report does not refer to the ceilings one way or the other.
I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the ceiling was damaged during the tenancy. Moreover, the repair has not been done some seven months gone since the end of the tenancy and the premises paintwork is due for refreshing. The claim for compensation for the anticipated cost to repair the ceiling is rejected. Conclusion
The Tribunal orders the tenants to compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing the adhesive-damaged paintwork.
The other claims for compensation for the cost of repairing damage are dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with the Tribunal’s order. Filing fee
The parties’ claims have each been successful to an extent. The Tribunal does not order the parties to reimburse the other for their filing fee. Non-publication
The parties ask for non-publication of their identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The parties have each substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4511933 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4511933 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their end of tenancy obligations?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their end of tenancy obligations?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions