What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535529 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 4535529?

Cleaning: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing - Consent: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Light: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535529?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9527576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535529 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 4535529?

Cleaning: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing - Consent: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Light: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535529?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9527576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4535529 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4535529 — net $283.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawn mowing - consent	$30.00	Lawn mowing - consent
Carpet Cleaning	$228.85	Carpet Cleaning
Replace bathroom light	$25.00	Replace bathroom light
Net award	$283.85
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$283.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Wairau Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management - Glenfield as agent for C Millane $283.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wairau Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management - Glenfield as agent for C Millane: $283.85 [The tenant/s]: $1,996.15
The application for the cost of replacing a door handle and a window latch and for the repair of damage to the deck and to window glass is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Willis represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing. I allow that claim by consent.
The landlord has claimed for the cost of carpet cleaning. The tenants say they vacuumed the carpets and removed stains and that met their statutory responsibility to leave the carpets reasonably clean. They also believed that weather events caused some smell of damp and mould as water entered through the hole in the door glass where a cat door had been removed.
The tenants’ dog was allowed inside the premises (the tenants were allowed to keep a dog).
When pets are kept inside, the Tribunal considers it reasonable for the tenants to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of a tenancy to remove pet fur and odour. I find this claim proved.
At the end of the tenancy a bathroom light bulb was missing. I have allowed $25.00 for the replacement of this bulb by a contractor. Although the tenants said they did not recall the bulb being missing, I accept Mr Willis’ evidence from the inspections she undertook that the light bulb was missing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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, 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 has claimed for the replacement cost of a glass pane in a door from the lounge to the outside deck.
A cat flap had been removed from the glass and the hole was covered with plastic and stuck to the remaining area of the pane.
The tenants gave evidence that the glass pane deteriorated quickly and for the safety of their dog they removed it.
The damage to the pane (the hole caused by the removal of the cat door) was done before the tenancy started. Ms Willis seems to have accepted that this was a landlord responsibility. Her claim is that the tenants did not report the deterioration of the glass.
I do not find proved a claim to replace the glass pane. In effect, the removal of the cat door has required the replacement of the glass pane, not any action or inaction (such as a failure to report) by the tenants. Covering the hole left by the removal of the glass pane was not really an acceptable option.
I dismiss the claim for the repair cost of the glass.
I also dismiss the claim for the sanding and staining of the deck.
The evidence the landlord produced shows clear scratch marks made by the tenants’ dog. The tenants accept that. But they gave evidence that the extreme [city] weather events (photo produced of water pouring over the deck) caused the deck to become wet and slippery so their dog made scratch marks due to traction, in effect ordinary wear and tear in the circumstances.
I do not find that this damage was careless damage.
Furthermore, the claim is based on a quote. The tenancy ended on 20 February 2023. The owners have moved into the premises. The work has not been done. It is probable that it will not be done.
Ms Willis said the owners have purchased the next-door unit and are deciding whether to demolish both premises and build a new dwelling.
If they choose that option, the owners will not have suffered any compensable loss.
In the overall context, this is an issue best seen as one of owner maintenance.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for replacing a door handle and a window latch. The tenants’ evidence establishes that the loosening of the handle or damage to the latch was due to fair wear and tear, in other words, ordinary use. Again, this is a matter of landlord maintenance. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $283.85 from the bond. The balance of the bond will be paid to the tenants.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only marginally successful. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenants applied for name suppression and are entitled to an order as their defence to the application is mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4535529 — net $283.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawn mowing - consent	$30.00	Lawn mowing - consent
Carpet Cleaning	$228.85	Carpet Cleaning
Replace bathroom light	$25.00	Replace bathroom light
Net award	$283.85
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$283.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Wairau Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management - Glenfield as agent for C Millane $283.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wairau Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management - Glenfield as agent for C Millane: $283.85 [The tenant/s]: $1,996.15
The application for the cost of replacing a door handle and a window latch and for the repair of damage to the deck and to window glass is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Willis represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing. I allow that claim by consent.
The landlord has claimed for the cost of carpet cleaning. The tenants say they vacuumed the carpets and removed stains and that met their statutory responsibility to leave the carpets reasonably clean. They also believed that weather events caused some smell of damp and mould as water entered through the hole in the door glass where a cat door had been removed.
The tenants’ dog was allowed inside the premises (the tenants were allowed to keep a dog).
When pets are kept inside, the Tribunal considers it reasonable for the tenants to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of a tenancy to remove pet fur and odour. I find this claim proved.
At the end of the tenancy a bathroom light bulb was missing. I have allowed $25.00 for the replacement of this bulb by a contractor. Although the tenants said they did not recall the bulb being missing, I accept Mr Willis’ evidence from the inspections she undertook that the light bulb was missing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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, 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 has claimed for the replacement cost of a glass pane in a door from the lounge to the outside deck.
A cat flap had been removed from the glass and the hole was covered with plastic and stuck to the remaining area of the pane.
The tenants gave evidence that the glass pane deteriorated quickly and for the safety of their dog they removed it.
The damage to the pane (the hole caused by the removal of the cat door) was done before the tenancy started. Ms Willis seems to have accepted that this was a landlord responsibility. Her claim is that the tenants did not report the deterioration of the glass.
I do not find proved a claim to replace the glass pane. In effect, the removal of the cat door has required the replacement of the glass pane, not any action or inaction (such as a failure to report) by the tenants. Covering the hole left by the removal of the glass pane was not really an acceptable option.
I dismiss the claim for the repair cost of the glass.
I also dismiss the claim for the sanding and staining of the deck.
The evidence the landlord produced shows clear scratch marks made by the tenants’ dog. The tenants accept that. But they gave evidence that the extreme [city] weather events (photo produced of water pouring over the deck) caused the deck to become wet and slippery so their dog made scratch marks due to traction, in effect ordinary wear and tear in the circumstances.
I do not find that this damage was careless damage.
Furthermore, the claim is based on a quote. The tenancy ended on 20 February 2023. The owners have moved into the premises. The work has not been done. It is probable that it will not be done.
Ms Willis said the owners have purchased the next-door unit and are deciding whether to demolish both premises and build a new dwelling.
If they choose that option, the owners will not have suffered any compensable loss.
In the overall context, this is an issue best seen as one of owner maintenance.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for replacing a door handle and a window latch. The tenants’ evidence establishes that the loosening of the handle or damage to the latch was due to fair wear and tear, in other words, ordinary use. Again, this is a matter of landlord maintenance. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $283.85 from the bond. The balance of the bond will be paid to the tenants.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee as the application is only marginally successful. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenants applied for name suppression and are entitled to an order as their defence to the application is mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535529 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535529 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants 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 tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions