What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535342 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 4535342?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,771.43 awarded to landlord; Coffee Table: $153.14 awarded to landlord; Doors And Walls: $875.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Chopping Board: $4.25 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: glass oven dish…: $14.74 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Microwave: $119.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535342?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9276238-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535342 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 4535342?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,771.43 awarded to landlord; Coffee Table: $153.14 awarded to landlord; Doors And Walls: $875.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Chopping Board: $4.25 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: glass oven dish…: $14.74 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Microwave: $119.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535342?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9276238-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4535342 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4535342 — net $2,693.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 May 2023	$2,771.43	Rent arrears to 02 May 2023
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Repairs: doors and walls	$875.00	Repairs: doors and walls
Replace furnishings: microwave	$119.25	Replace furnishings: microwave
Replace furnishings: chopping board	$4.25	Replace furnishings: chopping board
Replace furnishings: glass oven dishes	$14.74	Replace furnishings: glass oven dishes
Repairs: coffee table	$153.14	Repairs: coffee table
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,693.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,693.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,693.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared by telephone.
The tenancy commenced on 01 August 2022. The landlord’s claim was filed on 27 March 2023. The matter was listed for hearing on 18 May 2023. The tenancy subsequently ended on 02 May 2023. On 18 May 2023, the matter was adjourned and set down for hearing on 08 August 2023.
The landlord claims are that: (in brackets is the compensation sought) (i)The tenant owes vacated rent arrears to 02 May 2023 ($2,771.43), (ii)The tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy, ($655.00), (iii)The tenant is responsible for damage to walls and doors, ($875.00), (iv)The tenant is responsible for damage to net curtains, ($70.00), (v)The tenant is responsible for missing chattels, namely a microwave ($159.00), glass oven dishes, ($22.00), (vi)The tenant is responsible for damage to other chattels, namely a kettle ($25.00), a chopping board, ($4.25), (vii)The tenant is responsible for damage to a coffee table, ($153.14)).
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy is a joint tenancy. Neither tenant was released from their obligations under the agreement or provisions of the Act during the tenancy. Both are jointly and severally liable for rent arrears and any compensation. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 02 May 2023. The landlord has provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The amount ordered is proved. Did the tenant fail to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy, ($655.00)
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the inside of the property at both the commencement and end of the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] has also given oral evidence as to the condition of the property at both the commencement and end. Whether a tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition will involve an objective assessment. It is what the reasonable by stander looking through the window, in this case the Tribunal, would consider reasonably clean and tidy.
I have viewed the photographs and heard from both [The landlord’s representative] and [Tenant 1]. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and remove all rubbish. The claim also includes cleaning the carpet. I am however not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to award compensation for carpet cleaning. The invoice has been itemised. I deduct the portion for carpet cleaning and award the balance of $575.00. Missing chattels, namely a microwave ($159.00), glass oven dishes, ($22.00)
Under section 40(1) the tenant must account for any chattel provided with the tenancy. The two chattels concerned, two glass oven dishes and a microwave oven were provided as chattels and are recorded in the tenancy agreement. There is no dispute that they were both missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is unsure as to what happened to the glass dishes. The tenant states that the microwave ceased to function, and they disposed of it. The landlord was not advised. A prudent tenant keeps the chattels concerned and reports the damage to the landlord. Disposing of it deprives the landlord the opportunity to determine whether the chattel concerned can be repaired or requires replacing. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to account for the chattel’s concerned.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. A landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, and not better or worse off. Glassware and microwaves in rental properties have an expected lifespan of 3 and 4 years. I must also consider the condition of the chattels at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states the glassware was approximately 1 year old, and the microwave approximately 2 years old at the commencement of the tenancy, and that both were in reasonable condition. I deduct 25% from the amount claimed for the microwave, and 33% from the amount claimed for the glassware. Accordingly, I award $119.25 to replace the microwave, and $14.74 for the glassware.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must satisfy the Tribunal that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Once the landlord has established to the required standard that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear, the onus shifts to the tenant who must show that the damage was not the result of a careless or intentional act on their part, or someone at the property with their permission.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord. For the purposes of the Act carelessness has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence, or lack of foresight.
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.
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. A tenant is liable for the full cost of repairing damage that they have caused intentionally. Damage to walls and doors, ($875.00)
The tenants were a couple. Unfortunately, there appears to have been disharmony between the tenants which resulted in damage to the property over and above that recorded in the pre tenancy report and photographs.
The landlord has produced photographs of the damage which includes: a small dent in the bathroom wall, a hole in the bathroom door, nicks or dings to the door frames in the bathroom and cupboard in the lounge, holes, which have been partially repaired on the outside of the bathroom door, a hole in the door to the master bedroom, two holes, partially repaired in a wall in the master bedroom, and two dents in a lounge wall and doorframe. The tenant states that the damage occurred during arguments between the tenants.
I am satisfied that the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage in my view is likely a combination of both carelessness and intentional acts. The landlord has insurance for damage caused through carelessness but is not covered for intentional damage. In any event the amount claimed to repair the damage is less than any excess that may have applied. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment. The walls and doors had been recently redecorated at the commencement of the tenancy. The amount claimed is to repair the damaged areas only. Damage to net curtains, ($70.00)
The net curtains in the lounge were new at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the landlord removed them for routine cleaning, not included in the cleaning claim, and discovered damage in the form of tearing to the nets in the lounge. The tenant states that one night an unknown cat, not their own, jumped through the window damaging the curtains in the process. Although each window has a security stay, they open wide enough to allow a cat to climb in. The landlord cannot dispute that the damage is consistent with the explanation given. Although there has been damage, I am not satisfied that it amounts to more than fair wear and tear. The claim for the net curtains is dismissed. Damage to kettle ($25.00), and chopping board, ($4.25)
The chopping board provided as a chattel with the tenancy has been bent and buckled. It was not in that condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged that it had been used in a manner for which it was not intended. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment.
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy they filled the kettle and discovered that it leaked. The landlord states the kettle was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant states they used the kettle on many occasions during the tenancy, and that it had no apparent fault or damage.
Other than the kettle leaking, the landlord is unable to give specific details concerning the damage. There are no photographs showing the nature of the damage. The landlord states that the kettle was approximately 2 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. Small appliances such as kettles in rental properties have an expected lifespan of around 4 years. I am unable to make an objective assessment. In this case there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the damage was necessarily more than fair wear and tear. Damage to coffee table, ($153.14)
The coffee table in the lounge was damaged during an argument between the tenants. The glass top was smashed, one of the legs and a shelf under the table was broken. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is to replace the glass and materials to repair the shelf and leg. The amount claimed is awarded. I make no deduction for betterment or depreciation. Costs
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act provides the Tribunal a discretion to order name suppression outside those grounds contained in section 95A, that is where the party has neither been wholly or substantially successful.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression. Although the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful there appears to have been instances of domestic violence involving both tenants. On that basis I exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) and order suppression of the name and details of both tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4535342 — net $2,693.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 02 May 2023	$2,771.43	Rent arrears to 02 May 2023
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Repairs: doors and walls	$875.00	Repairs: doors and walls
Replace furnishings: microwave	$119.25	Replace furnishings: microwave
Replace furnishings: chopping board	$4.25	Replace furnishings: chopping board
Replace furnishings: glass oven dishes	$14.74	Replace furnishings: glass oven dishes
Repairs: coffee table	$153.14	Repairs: coffee table
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,693.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,693.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,693.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared by telephone.
The tenancy commenced on 01 August 2022. The landlord’s claim was filed on 27 March 2023. The matter was listed for hearing on 18 May 2023. The tenancy subsequently ended on 02 May 2023. On 18 May 2023, the matter was adjourned and set down for hearing on 08 August 2023.
The landlord claims are that: (in brackets is the compensation sought) (i)The tenant owes vacated rent arrears to 02 May 2023 ($2,771.43), (ii)The tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy, ($655.00), (iii)The tenant is responsible for damage to walls and doors, ($875.00), (iv)The tenant is responsible for damage to net curtains, ($70.00), (v)The tenant is responsible for missing chattels, namely a microwave ($159.00), glass oven dishes, ($22.00), (vi)The tenant is responsible for damage to other chattels, namely a kettle ($25.00), a chopping board, ($4.25), (vii)The tenant is responsible for damage to a coffee table, ($153.14)).
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy is a joint tenancy. Neither tenant was released from their obligations under the agreement or provisions of the Act during the tenancy. Both are jointly and severally liable for rent arrears and any compensation. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 02 May 2023. The landlord has provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The amount ordered is proved. Did the tenant fail to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy, ($655.00)
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the inside of the property at both the commencement and end of the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] has also given oral evidence as to the condition of the property at both the commencement and end. Whether a tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition will involve an objective assessment. It is what the reasonable by stander looking through the window, in this case the Tribunal, would consider reasonably clean and tidy.
I have viewed the photographs and heard from both [The landlord’s representative] and [Tenant 1]. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and remove all rubbish. The claim also includes cleaning the carpet. I am however not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to award compensation for carpet cleaning. The invoice has been itemised. I deduct the portion for carpet cleaning and award the balance of $575.00. Missing chattels, namely a microwave ($159.00), glass oven dishes, ($22.00)
Under section 40(1) the tenant must account for any chattel provided with the tenancy. The two chattels concerned, two glass oven dishes and a microwave oven were provided as chattels and are recorded in the tenancy agreement. There is no dispute that they were both missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is unsure as to what happened to the glass dishes. The tenant states that the microwave ceased to function, and they disposed of it. The landlord was not advised. A prudent tenant keeps the chattels concerned and reports the damage to the landlord. Disposing of it deprives the landlord the opportunity to determine whether the chattel concerned can be repaired or requires replacing. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to account for the chattel’s concerned.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. A landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, and not better or worse off. Glassware and microwaves in rental properties have an expected lifespan of 3 and 4 years. I must also consider the condition of the chattels at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states the glassware was approximately 1 year old, and the microwave approximately 2 years old at the commencement of the tenancy, and that both were in reasonable condition. I deduct 25% from the amount claimed for the microwave, and 33% from the amount claimed for the glassware. Accordingly, I award $119.25 to replace the microwave, and $14.74 for the glassware.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must satisfy the Tribunal that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Once the landlord has established to the required standard that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear, the onus shifts to the tenant who must show that the damage was not the result of a careless or intentional act on their part, or someone at the property with their permission.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord. For the purposes of the Act carelessness has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence, or lack of foresight.
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.
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. A tenant is liable for the full cost of repairing damage that they have caused intentionally. Damage to walls and doors, ($875.00)
The tenants were a couple. Unfortunately, there appears to have been disharmony between the tenants which resulted in damage to the property over and above that recorded in the pre tenancy report and photographs.
The landlord has produced photographs of the damage which includes: a small dent in the bathroom wall, a hole in the bathroom door, nicks or dings to the door frames in the bathroom and cupboard in the lounge, holes, which have been partially repaired on the outside of the bathroom door, a hole in the door to the master bedroom, two holes, partially repaired in a wall in the master bedroom, and two dents in a lounge wall and doorframe. The tenant states that the damage occurred during arguments between the tenants.
I am satisfied that the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage in my view is likely a combination of both carelessness and intentional acts. The landlord has insurance for damage caused through carelessness but is not covered for intentional damage. In any event the amount claimed to repair the damage is less than any excess that may have applied. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment. The walls and doors had been recently redecorated at the commencement of the tenancy. The amount claimed is to repair the damaged areas only. Damage to net curtains, ($70.00)
The net curtains in the lounge were new at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the landlord removed them for routine cleaning, not included in the cleaning claim, and discovered damage in the form of tearing to the nets in the lounge. The tenant states that one night an unknown cat, not their own, jumped through the window damaging the curtains in the process. Although each window has a security stay, they open wide enough to allow a cat to climb in. The landlord cannot dispute that the damage is consistent with the explanation given. Although there has been damage, I am not satisfied that it amounts to more than fair wear and tear. The claim for the net curtains is dismissed. Damage to kettle ($25.00), and chopping board, ($4.25)
The chopping board provided as a chattel with the tenancy has been bent and buckled. It was not in that condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged that it had been used in a manner for which it was not intended. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment.
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy they filled the kettle and discovered that it leaked. The landlord states the kettle was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant states they used the kettle on many occasions during the tenancy, and that it had no apparent fault or damage.
Other than the kettle leaking, the landlord is unable to give specific details concerning the damage. There are no photographs showing the nature of the damage. The landlord states that the kettle was approximately 2 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. Small appliances such as kettles in rental properties have an expected lifespan of around 4 years. I am unable to make an objective assessment. In this case there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the damage was necessarily more than fair wear and tear. Damage to coffee table, ($153.14)
The coffee table in the lounge was damaged during an argument between the tenants. The glass top was smashed, one of the legs and a shelf under the table was broken. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is to replace the glass and materials to repair the shelf and leg. The amount claimed is awarded. I make no deduction for betterment or depreciation. Costs
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act provides the Tribunal a discretion to order name suppression outside those grounds contained in section 95A, that is where the party has neither been wholly or substantially successful.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression. Although the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful there appears to have been instances of domestic violence involving both tenants. On that basis I exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) and order suppression of the name and details of both tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535342 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535342 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions