What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4515530 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 4515530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4515530?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4515530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9311068-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4515530 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 4515530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4515530?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4515530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9311068-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4515530 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 17 August 2023.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. A professional cleaner cleaned the oven and cooktop, and scrubbed the bathroom and kitchen floors, which were sticky. The invoice states: “Cleaning services – Kitchen/Bathroom, Toilet”. The photographs show that there was also a need to clean the fridge, external walkways, and pots and pans.
The landlord cleaned the carpets to try and remove the smell of pets but was unable to do so.
In addition to the cost of professional cleaning ($200.00) and carpet cleaning ($335.00) the owner also claimed 40 hours for cleaning sinks, cupboards, pots and pans, and walkways, and 20 hours removing stickers from the walls and spot cleaning windows. The owner sought reimbursement at $30.00 per hour for this work (a total claim of $1,200.00).
Some of the landlord’s attendances related to issues that were not claimed in the application, for example for damage to part of the glass façade. I accept, however, that further cleaning to the kitchen and flooring was required to bring the property into compliance with the Act. I award $300.00 for additional cleaning by the owner.
The landlord had to dispose of several mattresses that were left behind (the claim was for two-thirds of the invoiced cost of $250.00).
The tenant did not return all the keys. There were also unknown flatmates living at the property. The landlord had to change the locks to make the property secure ($404.40).
Various chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy, including an LPG regulator (for attachment to the BBQ), a 40metre electrical cord, a cable wheel, a step ladder, and a smoke alarm on the top floor. The cost of replacing these chattels was $668.94.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent (Section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The insurance excess was $2,500.00 and the weekly rent was $650.00. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent ($2,600.00).
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. 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.
At the end of the tenancy the carpets were badly stained and had to be replaced in 5 rooms. Insurers paid the cost of replacement ($10,759.97) after applying an excess of $2,500.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord is entitled to recover the excess, which is less than 4 weeks’ rent.
The curtains were also stained and ripped and had to be replaced along with the lounge blinds. The curtains and blinds were not covered by insurance. The cost of replacement was $2,958.00. The landlord’s recovery is limited to $2,600.00 pursuant to section 49B of the Act (4 times the weekly rent).
The landlord says the lid of the washing machine was damaged and its power cord was cut. This was mentioned in an email from the owner, but no photographs of this damage were available. I decline to award the cost of replacement on the available evidence ($419.00). Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is granted suppression as requested.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 17 August 2023.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. A professional cleaner cleaned the oven and cooktop, and scrubbed the bathroom and kitchen floors, which were sticky. The invoice states: “Cleaning services – Kitchen/Bathroom, Toilet”. The photographs show that there was also a need to clean the fridge, external walkways, and pots and pans.
The landlord cleaned the carpets to try and remove the smell of pets but was unable to do so.
In addition to the cost of professional cleaning ($200.00) and carpet cleaning ($335.00) the owner also claimed 40 hours for cleaning sinks, cupboards, pots and pans, and walkways, and 20 hours removing stickers from the walls and spot cleaning windows. The owner sought reimbursement at $30.00 per hour for this work (a total claim of $1,200.00).
Some of the landlord’s attendances related to issues that were not claimed in the application, for example for damage to part of the glass façade. I accept, however, that further cleaning to the kitchen and flooring was required to bring the property into compliance with the Act. I award $300.00 for additional cleaning by the owner.
The landlord had to dispose of several mattresses that were left behind (the claim was for two-thirds of the invoiced cost of $250.00).
The tenant did not return all the keys. There were also unknown flatmates living at the property. The landlord had to change the locks to make the property secure ($404.40).
Various chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy, including an LPG regulator (for attachment to the BBQ), a 40metre electrical cord, a cable wheel, a step ladder, and a smoke alarm on the top floor. The cost of replacing these chattels was $668.94.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent (Section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The insurance excess was $2,500.00 and the weekly rent was $650.00. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent ($2,600.00).
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. 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.
At the end of the tenancy the carpets were badly stained and had to be replaced in 5 rooms. Insurers paid the cost of replacement ($10,759.97) after applying an excess of $2,500.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord is entitled to recover the excess, which is less than 4 weeks’ rent.
The curtains were also stained and ripped and had to be replaced along with the lounge blinds. The curtains and blinds were not covered by insurance. The cost of replacement was $2,958.00. The landlord’s recovery is limited to $2,600.00 pursuant to section 49B of the Act (4 times the weekly rent).
The landlord says the lid of the washing machine was damaged and its power cord was cut. This was mentioned in an email from the owner, but no photographs of this damage were available. I decline to award the cost of replacement on the available evidence ($419.00). Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is granted suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4515530 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4515530 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

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

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