What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562329 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 4562329?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562329?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9204381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562329 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 4562329?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562329?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9204381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4562329 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562329 — net $170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$170.44
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$170.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Torsten Niki Dobbertin-King to pay [The landlord/s] $170.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $170.44 Torsten Niki Dobbertin-King: $1,349.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant wants the bond to be refunded.

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See s45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See sections 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
There is a claim for cleaning the carpet and a sofa. I was given one photo of the sofa taken at the end of the tenancy. That photo does not persuade me that the sofa needed extra cleaning. This part of the claim is dismissed.
I have been provided with carpet photos, some taken at the start of the tenancy and some at the final inspection. The photos of the carpet do show some marks. The tenant submitted these were the pile of the carpet rather than stains and said he did not notice any stains when he moved out. I have considered the photos and I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission. I find the landlord has proved the carpets needed additional cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I note there is no requirement under the RTA that landlord’s give tenants a chance to rectify a breach. The amount ordered is the amount claimed on the carpet invoice, less an estimated amount for the sofa cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for the insurance excess for the replacement or repair of the kitchen bench. Landlords 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord provided photos which show marks on a kitchen bench that are not obvious in the ingoing photos. The tenant submitted that any marks were barely noticeable and that the photos exaggerated what was there. I have carefully examined the photos and it seems most likely to me there was some marking during the tenancy.
The landlord’s submission is there was careless damage. The landlord provided me with a copy of the insurance excess, which is $500. However, if the actual cost of repair is less than the excess, the tenant only pays for the cost of the repair.
An insurance claim has not been made, so there is no information from an assessor as to the cost. I was not provided with any quotes for the repair work. This means I cannot establish if the cost to repair would be less than the cost of the insurance excess. I cannot make an order without this information.
Further, the Tribunal can only order compensation is there has been a loss to the landlord. The landlord’s submission the apartment has been devalued is not supported by any evidence. No insurance claim has been made, so there is no loss of the excess. New tenants are living in the apartment, and they are using the bench, so there is no loss of rent. I am not persuaded there is any loss here and this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for consumables?

There is a claim for the cost of replacing a mattress protector and a shower curtain in the amount of $100. The tenancy agreement contains a clause which states the tenant will be provided with a new mattress protector and a new shower curtain and he will either replace these at the end of the tenancy or pay to have them replaced. At the hearing the tenant disagreed with these claims.
I do not find the RTA supports this type of additional cost being claimed from the tenant. If the landlord wants to provide a new shower curtain and mattress protector for every tenancy then that is a choice, and a cost the landlord should pay.
The fact this was included in the tenancy agreement is not persuasive because section 11 states that any provision of any agreement entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect. And tenants cannot waive that right by signing a tenancy agreement. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and allowed its application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562329 — net $170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$170.44
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$170.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Torsten Niki Dobbertin-King to pay [The landlord/s] $170.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $170.44 Torsten Niki Dobbertin-King: $1,349.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant wants the bond to be refunded.

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See s45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See sections 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
There is a claim for cleaning the carpet and a sofa. I was given one photo of the sofa taken at the end of the tenancy. That photo does not persuade me that the sofa needed extra cleaning. This part of the claim is dismissed.
I have been provided with carpet photos, some taken at the start of the tenancy and some at the final inspection. The photos of the carpet do show some marks. The tenant submitted these were the pile of the carpet rather than stains and said he did not notice any stains when he moved out. I have considered the photos and I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission. I find the landlord has proved the carpets needed additional cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I note there is no requirement under the RTA that landlord’s give tenants a chance to rectify a breach. The amount ordered is the amount claimed on the carpet invoice, less an estimated amount for the sofa cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for the insurance excess for the replacement or repair of the kitchen bench. Landlords 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord provided photos which show marks on a kitchen bench that are not obvious in the ingoing photos. The tenant submitted that any marks were barely noticeable and that the photos exaggerated what was there. I have carefully examined the photos and it seems most likely to me there was some marking during the tenancy.
The landlord’s submission is there was careless damage. The landlord provided me with a copy of the insurance excess, which is $500. However, if the actual cost of repair is less than the excess, the tenant only pays for the cost of the repair.
An insurance claim has not been made, so there is no information from an assessor as to the cost. I was not provided with any quotes for the repair work. This means I cannot establish if the cost to repair would be less than the cost of the insurance excess. I cannot make an order without this information.
Further, the Tribunal can only order compensation is there has been a loss to the landlord. The landlord’s submission the apartment has been devalued is not supported by any evidence. No insurance claim has been made, so there is no loss of the excess. New tenants are living in the apartment, and they are using the bench, so there is no loss of rent. I am not persuaded there is any loss here and this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for consumables?

There is a claim for the cost of replacing a mattress protector and a shower curtain in the amount of $100. The tenancy agreement contains a clause which states the tenant will be provided with a new mattress protector and a new shower curtain and he will either replace these at the end of the tenancy or pay to have them replaced. At the hearing the tenant disagreed with these claims.
I do not find the RTA supports this type of additional cost being claimed from the tenant. If the landlord wants to provide a new shower curtain and mattress protector for every tenancy then that is a choice, and a cost the landlord should pay.
The fact this was included in the tenancy agreement is not persuasive because section 11 states that any provision of any agreement entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect. And tenants cannot waive that right by signing a tenancy agreement. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and allowed its application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562329 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562329 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant pay for consumables?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant pay for consumables?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions