What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4584250 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 4584250?

Cleaning: $776.25 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4584250?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4584250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9544548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4584250 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 4584250?

Cleaning: $776.25 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4584250?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4584250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9544548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4584250 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4584250. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$776.25	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$300.00	Repairs
Pest control	$215.00	Pest control
Replacement freezer trays	$20.00	Replacement freezer trays

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative]. Both tenants attended.

The landlord’s claim is in respect of the tenancy of a three-bedroom villa in [Suburb] which began on 11 February 2020 and ended on 8 April 2023. While the tenancy agreement records both tenants’ names, I was advised that [Tenant 1] moved out of the property in approximately February 2022 but that no change of tenant forms were completed at that stage.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

As this is the landlord’s claim the onus is on the landlord to prove their claims to the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed in this claim but the parties should be assured that I have considered all of the evidence carefully.

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, 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.

[Tenant 2] accepts that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. She says that she simply did not have time to clean due to the circumstances that existed when she moved out. The landlord produced an invoice from [Cleaning company] in the amount of $776.25 which [Tenant 2] accepts as reasonable in all the circumstances. I order accordingly.

The landlord also sought additional cleaning as part of a further claim for labour (spent by the owner gardening, weeding and cleaning). After having reviewed the entry and exist inspection photos and having heard from the parties I do not consider that there is any basis for ordering any further sum for cleaning. Tenants are not required to leave a property in spotless condition ready for a new tenant to move in. It is expected that landlords will have to do some additional cleaning, particularly after a tenancy of over three years, and the cost of doing so is simply a cost of doing business for the landlord.

The landlord initially also sought to claim the cost of lawn mowing but withdrew this claim at the hearing, as the tenant had mowed the lawns at the end of the tenancy. However the landlord did seek “gardening, weeding and front hedge tidy” as part of the labour costs for cleaning referred to in paragraph 7 above. Having reviewed the evidence and having heard from the parties I consider that it is appropriate to order five hours of weeding and gardening (as accepted by the tenant), at a rate of $25.00 per hour. This is the rate commonly applied by the Tribunal and I consider it to be appropriate in this case as there was no evidence before me to suggest that the owner had any specialist gardening ability. I therefore order $125.00 for gardening and weeding. The front hedge was not the responsibility of the tenant.

The landlord also claimed that the tenants left rubbish behind and sought to claim the cost of two skip bins as compensation. However after reviewing the photos and hearing from the parties I am satisfied that all of the rubbish (with the exception of one small peddle bin and black rubbish bag) in fact belonged to the landlord. Much of it was building materials that were discovered down the side of the house when the tenant did some gardening, and outdoor furniture and carpet belonging to the landlord that had reached the end of its useful life. I consider that the tenant’s rubbish was minimal and could have simply been collected as household rubbish in the usual way. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord also sought to claim for flea treatment at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted this claim. I order compensation on the basis of the invoice from [Pest control company] in the amount of $215.00. The landlord also sought to claim additional costs but as no invoices were provided I decline to order any further amounts.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all chattels in the condition that they were at the start of the tenancy, subject to wear and tear.

The landlord claimed that small pedal bin, “plastic hat” light fitting and freezer trays were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord produced an invoice for the pedal bin in the amount of $9.90, light fitting $13.48 and freezer trays $51.49. In my view the pedal bin and light fitting are such minor items that taking into account betterment and depreciation there is no basis for making any award. The tenant accepted the freezer trays were broken. I was not provided with any evidence as to the age of the fridge but it is appropriate to apply depreciation as the landlord now has new freezer trays. I consider $20.00 (roughly half) to be appropriate compensation.

The landlord claimed for various items including terracotta planters (allegedly missing), a glass pendant light (broken), a wardrobe (broken) and a bookcase (allegedly missing). I decline to order amounts for these items as there was no evidence provided showing that the terracotta planters were provided with the tenancy, and there were no invoices provided for the pendant light, wardrobe or bookcase. The tenant said that the wardrobe fell apart due to age and the bookcase was in the garage.

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 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 claims that there was various damage including a door that required replacement, various hardware replacement, a cracked window, painting, dents and minor repairs.

Having reviewed all of the photos and evidence, and having heard from the parties I consider that much of the damage claimed by the landlord is in the nature of wear and tear. The window appears to have been cracked as it was a sash window that did not run smoothly and fell into the frame. I am also conscious that that this is an older home and the tenancy was for a period of over three years. The door that was replaced looks to be original and likely near the end of its life. The fittings and handle claimed are all at the high end, which the tenant should not have to pay for. The yellow bedroom that was painted (and for which scaffolding is claimed) appears to have had some missing areas at the start of the tenancy and the paint appears to have simply worn off the wall by the bed. As with cleaning, it is usual for the landlord to attend to general maintenance and wear and tear in between tenancies.

In my view it is appropriate for the tenant to pay for damage that is more than wear and tear, and for that amount to be depreciated (including replacement items) to take into account the fact that the landlord should not be better or worse off. It is not possible to make a precise calculation but having reviewed the evidence I consider an appropriate compensation to be $300.00.

The landlord also claimed the cost of $44.33 for replacing one halogen light bulb and three LED light bulbs. In my view light bulbs are chattels and are subject to wear and tear. It is common knowledge that light bulbs have a finite life span and in my view there is no basis for an order for replacement light bulbs unless damage is proved beyond wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.

I record that both parties took a very reasonable and responsible approach during the hearing and were able to discuss the claims and in most cases reach agreement. The tenant readily accepted responsibility where it was appropriate to do so. In the circumstances I do not consider that it is appropriate to order a refund of the filing fee.

Both parties sought name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA. Although neither party has been “substantially successful” in this case I consider that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to suppress the parties’ names given the approach taken. It may well be that they could have reached agreement on all issues had the matter proceeded to mediation. The matters that I have had to determine have been fairly minor in the context of the overall claim.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4584250. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$776.25	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$300.00	Repairs
Pest control	$215.00	Pest control
Replacement freezer trays	$20.00	Replacement freezer trays

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative]. Both tenants attended.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 return all chattels in the condition that they were at the start of the tenancy, subject to wear and tear.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that there was various damage including a door that required replacement, various hardware replacement, a cracked window, painting, dents and minor repairs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4584250 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4584250 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions