What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4522609?

The tribunal order states: Myles Robert Taylor must pay Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit $200.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4522609?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4522609?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4522609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568344-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4522609?

The tribunal order states: Myles Robert Taylor must pay Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit $200.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4522609?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4522609?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4522609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568344-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

224 Spur Road, Hadlow, RD 5, Timaru 7975 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4522609 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

224 Spur Road, Hadlow, RD 5, Timaru 7975 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4522609 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4522609 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$400.00		Carpet Cleaning
Bond credit		$600.00	Bond credit
Total award	$400.00	$600.00
Net award		$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$200.00

Claims and awards for application 4522609 — net $200.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Bond credit

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond credit

Total award

Landlord $400.00 · Tenant $600.00

Net award

Tenant $200.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $200.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning

Order

Myles Robert Taylor must pay Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit $200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6106708-007) to Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider two applications, one from the landlord, the other the tenant.
The matter returns to the Tribunal following a rehearing granted. It is the case that a hearing was originally convened remotely on 23 May 2023, however only the landlord attended. The adjudicator, Ms Setefano proceeded with the hearing and issued an order. The tenants applied for a rehearing, and it appears there were was some confusion about how the tenants were to join DescriptionLandlordTenant Carpet Cleaning$400.00 Bond credit $600.00 Total award$400.00$600.00 Net award $200.00 Bond $4,000.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $200.00 the hearing. In any event Ms Setefano approved the rehearing. What that means is that the applications have been allocated to a different adjudicator (myself), to consider again. I convened a telephone hearing on 26 October 2023, and both parties were in attendance.
It is important to emphasise that I have approached the hearing afresh. That means I could reach the same or a different conclusion to Adjudicator Setefano, but it must be remembered that I have had the benefit of hearing from both parties, which the original adjudicator has not.
At the commencement of the hearing, I asked both parties what they wanted me to adjudicate. Mr Smit advised that he was only seeking to have his bond returned. As I explained, I would make an order taking the bond into account, but whether that was returned would depend on the level of success the landlord had in his claim. The landlord confirmed the only claim was in relation to damage (stains) to carpet in two rooms, and damage to curtains.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Myles Robert Taylor, and the two co-tenants as Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy between 14 February 2022 and 14 February 2024.
The parties negotiated, and it was agreed that the fixed term tenancy period would be reduced.
When possession of the premises were returned to the landlord, the landlord reports finding staining to the carpet in two rooms, and damage to curtains. That is the subject of the application from the landlord. The landlord claimed insurance for those three areas of damage, and now seeks to have the insurance excess ($1,000) for each of those areas of damage reimbursed by the tenants.
I note that the landlord also had the carpets commercially cleaned. The invoice provided from ‘Chemdry’ is for a total of $400.00. I have also considered the report from the carpet cleaner, indicating there were multiple areas of what the cleaner considered to be pet urine staining. There is disagreement in communications as to whether that wider staining occurred from these tenants.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Bedroom 3 carpet stain

The landlord has claimed compensation for a stain to bedroom 3 carpet that was not there prior to the tenancy. A claim was made to the insurer, and a commercial cleaning was undertaken. The insurer has compensated the landlord for carpet in the bedroom, and the landlord seeks the $1,000.00 excess. The landlord confirmed that the carpet was in place when he purchased the premises, and believes it was the original carpet installed when the premises were built, so would have been installed around 2014.
In response the tenant states that he carpets were in poor condition because of sun bleaching. The tenant states that the carpets were commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy, and furthermore the tenant ensured that the carpets were kept clean during the tenancy. The tenant considers the carpet was stained when the tenancy started, noting that the carpet was some years old prior to the tenancy commencing.
In conclusion the landlord disputes that there were stains to the carpet. The landlord states the premises were “pristine” at the start of the tenancy with no notable stains on the carpet. Lounge carpet stain
In addition to what the landlord has stated above, the landlord states the carpet stain in the lounge has been accepted by the Smit’s, said to have been a coffee stain, and that attracted another insurance excess.
The tenants agree that the carpet in the lounge has been stained by them from coffee. Analysis in relation to carpet stains
On balance I consider the two areas of staining are likely to have occurred during the tenancy. The pre-let inspection report does not record any staining in the bedroom or lounge carpet. Ultimately the point of pre-let inspection reports is to document any pre-existing damage, to settle the question as to the state of the premises when the tenancy commenced.
The question then becomes whether the tenant is liable for the damage caused by the staining. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the tenant must be liable for the commercial cleaning costs only. As noted above the tenants must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In this case I am satisfied that the carpet stains represent the premises not being returned reasonably clean. It was reasonable therefore that the landlord have the carpet commercially cleaned.
However I decline to order compensation for the carpet replacement for these reasons.
Firstly I am not satisfied that the carpet stains were of such an extent that a reasonable landlord would replace the carpet. The landlord confirmed that a new tenant is now in the premises, and there is no evidence before me that the staining would be of an extent that a prospective tenant would not rent the premises, or take the premises at a lower rental.
Secondly, if I were wrong in my above finding, I would conclude that no loss has been sustained for the landlord given the impact of depreciation. The Tribunal can only order compensation to the extent of a loss incurred by a party. Applying the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guides (IR265), the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years. That being the case, the carpet would be deemed at the end of its useful life given the age of the carpet. Finding as I do that the landlord has not established a loss, no order of compensation can be made beyond the cost incurred for commercial cleaning. Curtain damage
The landlord seeks compensation to the extent of the insurance excess in relation to damage to a curtain. The landlord was not certain what caused the damage, but advised it could not be repaired. The landlord states that the curtain rail appeared to have been damaged, and questions if someone had stepped on it. Mr Taylor assumes the curtains were installed originally around 2014.
The tenants state they do not know what caused the damage to the curtain, they state that when they moved out they could not see any curtain tear. Analysis
Having considered the evidence available, I am not persuaded that the damage to the curtains is beyond the level of fair wear and tear taking into account the age of the curtains.
If I were wrong in that finding, I would have nevertheless declined compensation because I do not consider the damage would be classed as careless or intentional damage, and furthermore the estimated useful life of curtains in a residential tenancy is again 8 years (IR 265), so the curtains would be at the end of their estimated life span.

BOND

At the hearing the landlord confirmed that he has received $600.00 of the bond, which was the amount ordered by Adjudicator Setefano. The tenant advised that the balance of the bond has not been returned to the tenants.
As I confirmed I would do, I have contacted the Bond Centre, who have confirmed that of the $4,600.00 of bond lodged, the $600.00 has been released to the landlord, but the balance of the bond ($4,000.00) is still in the Bond Centre, so I will order that be released to the tenants as set out above.
Because the landlord has received $600.00 from the bond, then that will be treated as a credit to the landlord, meaning the landlord has received an additional $200.00 that must be refunded to the tenant. Otherwise the balance of the bond is to be released to the tenants.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4522609 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$400.00		Carpet Cleaning
Bond credit		$600.00	Bond credit
Total award	$400.00	$600.00
Net award		$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$200.00

Claims and awards for application 4522609 — net $200.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Bond credit

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Bond credit

Total award

Landlord $400.00 · Tenant $600.00

Net award

Tenant $200.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $200.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning

Order

Myles Robert Taylor must pay Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit $200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6106708-007) to Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider two applications, one from the landlord, the other the tenant.
The matter returns to the Tribunal following a rehearing granted. It is the case that a hearing was originally convened remotely on 23 May 2023, however only the landlord attended. The adjudicator, Ms Setefano proceeded with the hearing and issued an order. The tenants applied for a rehearing, and it appears there were was some confusion about how the tenants were to join DescriptionLandlordTenant Carpet Cleaning$400.00 Bond credit $600.00 Total award$400.00$600.00 Net award $200.00 Bond $4,000.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $200.00 the hearing. In any event Ms Setefano approved the rehearing. What that means is that the applications have been allocated to a different adjudicator (myself), to consider again. I convened a telephone hearing on 26 October 2023, and both parties were in attendance.
It is important to emphasise that I have approached the hearing afresh. That means I could reach the same or a different conclusion to Adjudicator Setefano, but it must be remembered that I have had the benefit of hearing from both parties, which the original adjudicator has not.
At the commencement of the hearing, I asked both parties what they wanted me to adjudicate. Mr Smit advised that he was only seeking to have his bond returned. As I explained, I would make an order taking the bond into account, but whether that was returned would depend on the level of success the landlord had in his claim. The landlord confirmed the only claim was in relation to damage (stains) to carpet in two rooms, and damage to curtains.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Myles Robert Taylor, and the two co-tenants as Johan Smit and Laetitia Smit. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy between 14 February 2022 and 14 February 2024.
The parties negotiated, and it was agreed that the fixed term tenancy period would be reduced.
When possession of the premises were returned to the landlord, the landlord reports finding staining to the carpet in two rooms, and damage to curtains. That is the subject of the application from the landlord. The landlord claimed insurance for those three areas of damage, and now seeks to have the insurance excess ($1,000) for each of those areas of damage reimbursed by the tenants.
I note that the landlord also had the carpets commercially cleaned. The invoice provided from ‘Chemdry’ is for a total of $400.00. I have also considered the report from the carpet cleaner, indicating there were multiple areas of what the cleaner considered to be pet urine staining. There is disagreement in communications as to whether that wider staining occurred from these tenants.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Bedroom 3 carpet stain

The landlord has claimed compensation for a stain to bedroom 3 carpet that was not there prior to the tenancy. A claim was made to the insurer, and a commercial cleaning was undertaken. The insurer has compensated the landlord for carpet in the bedroom, and the landlord seeks the $1,000.00 excess. The landlord confirmed that the carpet was in place when he purchased the premises, and believes it was the original carpet installed when the premises were built, so would have been installed around 2014.
In response the tenant states that he carpets were in poor condition because of sun bleaching. The tenant states that the carpets were commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy, and furthermore the tenant ensured that the carpets were kept clean during the tenancy. The tenant considers the carpet was stained when the tenancy started, noting that the carpet was some years old prior to the tenancy commencing.
In conclusion the landlord disputes that there were stains to the carpet. The landlord states the premises were “pristine” at the start of the tenancy with no notable stains on the carpet. Lounge carpet stain
In addition to what the landlord has stated above, the landlord states the carpet stain in the lounge has been accepted by the Smit’s, said to have been a coffee stain, and that attracted another insurance excess.
The tenants agree that the carpet in the lounge has been stained by them from coffee. Analysis in relation to carpet stains
On balance I consider the two areas of staining are likely to have occurred during the tenancy. The pre-let inspection report does not record any staining in the bedroom or lounge carpet. Ultimately the point of pre-let inspection reports is to document any pre-existing damage, to settle the question as to the state of the premises when the tenancy commenced.
The question then becomes whether the tenant is liable for the damage caused by the staining. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the tenant must be liable for the commercial cleaning costs only. As noted above the tenants must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In this case I am satisfied that the carpet stains represent the premises not being returned reasonably clean. It was reasonable therefore that the landlord have the carpet commercially cleaned.
However I decline to order compensation for the carpet replacement for these reasons.
Firstly I am not satisfied that the carpet stains were of such an extent that a reasonable landlord would replace the carpet. The landlord confirmed that a new tenant is now in the premises, and there is no evidence before me that the staining would be of an extent that a prospective tenant would not rent the premises, or take the premises at a lower rental.
Secondly, if I were wrong in my above finding, I would conclude that no loss has been sustained for the landlord given the impact of depreciation. The Tribunal can only order compensation to the extent of a loss incurred by a party. Applying the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guides (IR265), the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years. That being the case, the carpet would be deemed at the end of its useful life given the age of the carpet. Finding as I do that the landlord has not established a loss, no order of compensation can be made beyond the cost incurred for commercial cleaning. Curtain damage
The landlord seeks compensation to the extent of the insurance excess in relation to damage to a curtain. The landlord was not certain what caused the damage, but advised it could not be repaired. The landlord states that the curtain rail appeared to have been damaged, and questions if someone had stepped on it. Mr Taylor assumes the curtains were installed originally around 2014.
The tenants state they do not know what caused the damage to the curtain, they state that when they moved out they could not see any curtain tear. Analysis
Having considered the evidence available, I am not persuaded that the damage to the curtains is beyond the level of fair wear and tear taking into account the age of the curtains.
If I were wrong in that finding, I would have nevertheless declined compensation because I do not consider the damage would be classed as careless or intentional damage, and furthermore the estimated useful life of curtains in a residential tenancy is again 8 years (IR 265), so the curtains would be at the end of their estimated life span.

BOND

At the hearing the landlord confirmed that he has received $600.00 of the bond, which was the amount ordered by Adjudicator Setefano. The tenant advised that the balance of the bond has not been returned to the tenants.
As I confirmed I would do, I have contacted the Bond Centre, who have confirmed that of the $4,600.00 of bond lodged, the $600.00 has been released to the landlord, but the balance of the bond ($4,000.00) is still in the Bond Centre, so I will order that be released to the tenants as set out above.
Because the landlord has received $600.00 from the bond, then that will be treated as a credit to the landlord, meaning the landlord has received an additional $200.00 that must be refunded to the tenant. Otherwise the balance of the bond is to be released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4522609 — Cleanliness at 224 Spur Road, Hadlow, RD 5, Timaru 7975

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4522609 — Cleanliness at 224 Spur Road, Hadlow, RD 5, Timaru 7975

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions