What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4569973?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3434365-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4569973?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $324.69 awarded to landlord; Window Sills Painting Portion: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569973?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9642441-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4569973?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3434365-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4569973?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $324.69 awarded to landlord; Window Sills Painting Portion: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569973?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9642441-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 17 Charlenne Close, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4569973 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4569973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates by consent	$324.69	Water rates by consent
Cleaning portion	$150.00	Cleaning portion
window sills painting portion	$100.00	window sills painting portion

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3434365-008) immediately apportioned as follows: M2 Real Estate Limited Acting Agent For Dhananjay& Shivani Kumar: $574.69 GAGANDEEP Kaur SIDHU and Hardeep Singh Mutiar: $1,665.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Muck for the agent and Mr Hardeep Singh and his support person.
The landlord has applied for compensation for water usage owing, cleaning, damages to kitchen benchtop, repainting of window sills in upstairs bedrooms, exemplary damages for removal of smoke alarm, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in November 2022.

How much is owed for water rates?

There is no dispute the tenant owed $324.69 for water at 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This is a property between 15 -20 years old. The kitchen and bathroom are dated and of tidy condition. Cleaning
The photos provided by the agent from pre-inspection and end of tenancy show there was some extra cleaning required at the end of the tenancy, though not necessarily of the entire property.
There is an invoice dated 15 December 2023 where a cleaner was used to clean the property. After hearing from both parties, that the landlord did leave their items in the property at the beginning of the tenancy for at least a week, I award the landlord $150.00 towards the cleaning of the property, particularly the kitchen and bathroom area. Rubbish Removal
It is questionable the claim for rubbish removal is linked to the tenant. The tenant says the items referred to being removed (tire, hose pipe, burner and gas cannister) were taken by him following the end of the tenancy. The agent was not sure what items were removed at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by the agent for the rubbish removal is numbered earlier than the cleaning invoice above and dated 2 January 22 which would have been during this tenancy.
The claim for rubbish removal is dismissed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 agent claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Burn to kitchen benchtop
I am satisfied the burn hole was caused during the tenancy after considering the pre-inspection and post-inspection photos. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It is likely to have occurred early in the tenancy and accidental given it was a burn next to the sink in the kitchen.
The landlord was initially negotiating $50.00 for compensation for the burn with the tenant but in the application claimed $100.00.
The burn hole has not been repaired. The agent advocated that to repair or replace the Formica was more expensive and an award should be made for the damage caused. It seems this property has been re-tenanted, and the landlord is receiving ongoing rent. Because there was no loss incurred, the Tribunal does not award any damages for this claim. Re-Painting Window Sills
The agent informed the tenant at the end of the tenancy that it was likely the bedroom window sills would need extra cleaning due to mould and mildew. It transpired that the mould was cleaned but did not come off and required sanding and re-painting.
The landlord claims $250.00 and has provided an invoice for work done to rectify this. The pre-inspection photos are not very clear in relation to the window sills. There are some photos that are clear of mould and a few that show mildew spots.
After hearing from both parties, I award the landlord $100.00 as a contribution to the re-painting of the window sills. It is an older property and there was some mildew showing early on at least one window in this the tenancy which lasted over 2 years.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation of the property in my award as re-painting the window sills benefits the landlord in renting out the property. Smoke Alarm
M2 Real Estate Limited Acting Agent For Dhananjay& Shivani Kumar claims the tenant had removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says on 6 November 2022 his neighbour contacted him to say the smoke alarm had been beeping. He went and took it down and informed the agent the next day (which was the day of the last property inspection). The agent would have noticed if there was no smoke alarm present on previous inspections. As the agent said, smoke alarms were taken seriously and thus would have been one of the things noted in routine inspections, the last inspection being on 15 September 2023 before the end of the tenancy.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
After hearing from the tenant, I am satisfied he removed the smoke alarm at the end of the tenancy and informed the agent the next day about it. There was no intention to defeat the purpose of the smoke alarm on the property. For this reason, the Tribunal declines to award exemplary damages.
On balance, because M2 Real Estate Limited Acting Agent For Dhananjay& Shivani Kumar have not been substantially successful with the claim and I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4569973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates by consent	$324.69	Water rates by consent
Cleaning portion	$150.00	Cleaning portion
window sills painting portion	$100.00	window sills painting portion

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3434365-008) immediately apportioned as follows: M2 Real Estate Limited Acting Agent For Dhananjay& Shivani Kumar: $574.69 GAGANDEEP Kaur SIDHU and Hardeep Singh Mutiar: $1,665.31

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Muck for the agent and Mr Hardeep Singh and his support person.
The landlord has applied for compensation for water usage owing, cleaning, damages to kitchen benchtop, repainting of window sills in upstairs bedrooms, exemplary damages for removal of smoke alarm, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in November 2022.

How much is owed for water rates?

There is no dispute the tenant owed $324.69 for water at 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This is a property between 15 -20 years old. The kitchen and bathroom are dated and of tidy condition. Cleaning
The photos provided by the agent from pre-inspection and end of tenancy show there was some extra cleaning required at the end of the tenancy, though not necessarily of the entire property.
There is an invoice dated 15 December 2023 where a cleaner was used to clean the property. After hearing from both parties, that the landlord did leave their items in the property at the beginning of the tenancy for at least a week, I award the landlord $150.00 towards the cleaning of the property, particularly the kitchen and bathroom area. Rubbish Removal
It is questionable the claim for rubbish removal is linked to the tenant. The tenant says the items referred to being removed (tire, hose pipe, burner and gas cannister) were taken by him following the end of the tenancy. The agent was not sure what items were removed at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by the agent for the rubbish removal is numbered earlier than the cleaning invoice above and dated 2 January 22 which would have been during this tenancy.
The claim for rubbish removal is dismissed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 agent claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Burn to kitchen benchtop
I am satisfied the burn hole was caused during the tenancy after considering the pre-inspection and post-inspection photos. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It is likely to have occurred early in the tenancy and accidental given it was a burn next to the sink in the kitchen.
The landlord was initially negotiating $50.00 for compensation for the burn with the tenant but in the application claimed $100.00.
The burn hole has not been repaired. The agent advocated that to repair or replace the Formica was more expensive and an award should be made for the damage caused. It seems this property has been re-tenanted, and the landlord is receiving ongoing rent. Because there was no loss incurred, the Tribunal does not award any damages for this claim. Re-Painting Window Sills
The agent informed the tenant at the end of the tenancy that it was likely the bedroom window sills would need extra cleaning due to mould and mildew. It transpired that the mould was cleaned but did not come off and required sanding and re-painting.
The landlord claims $250.00 and has provided an invoice for work done to rectify this. The pre-inspection photos are not very clear in relation to the window sills. There are some photos that are clear of mould and a few that show mildew spots.
After hearing from both parties, I award the landlord $100.00 as a contribution to the re-painting of the window sills. It is an older property and there was some mildew showing early on at least one window in this the tenancy which lasted over 2 years.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation of the property in my award as re-painting the window sills benefits the landlord in renting out the property. Smoke Alarm
M2 Real Estate Limited Acting Agent For Dhananjay& Shivani Kumar claims the tenant had removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says on 6 November 2022 his neighbour contacted him to say the smoke alarm had been beeping. He went and took it down and informed the agent the next day (which was the day of the last property inspection). The agent would have noticed if there was no smoke alarm present on previous inspections. As the agent said, smoke alarms were taken seriously and thus would have been one of the things noted in routine inspections, the last inspection being on 15 September 2023 before the end of the tenancy.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
After hearing from the tenant, I am satisfied he removed the smoke alarm at the end of the tenancy and informed the agent the next day about it. There was no intention to defeat the purpose of the smoke alarm on the property. For this reason, the Tribunal declines to award exemplary damages.
On balance, because M2 Real Estate Limited Acting Agent For Dhananjay& Shivani Kumar have not been substantially successful with the claim and I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569973 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 17 Charlenne Close, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569973 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 17 Charlenne Close, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions