What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4612089 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4612089?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612089?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9350086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4612089 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4612089?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612089?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9350086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4612089 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612089. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $158.44 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Toi & Toi Holdings Limited , as calculated in the table below. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $2,201.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Neal and Ms Chung appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 19 March 2021 and ended on 15 May 2023. On 21 June 2023, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant was responsible for staining to the carpet in the living room and damage to walls.
The landlord is claiming $138.00 to remove the stain, and $126.50 to repair the damage. Stain
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
Mr Neal states that at the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered a 30cm circular brown stain on the carpet in the lounge. The landlord has provided pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports, both of which include photographs. I am satisfied that the stain was not present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledges that the stain occurred during the tenancy and formed beneath a pot plant. The cleaners invoice states the stain is consistent with having been caused by an overwatered pot plant. The stain was successfully removed. The landlord is seeking compensation of $138.00, which they state is the minimum call out charge. The tenant questions the reasonableness of the amount claimed and has provided an alternative quote from another cleaner to remove the stain for $92.00. The tenant described the stain to the cleaner via email but did not provide a photograph. Having considered the evidence, the amount claimed is reasonable and award it in full.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed in a claim for damage the landlord must establish more likely than not that the damage 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.
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, which in this case is $650.00 per claim. Tenants are liable for the full cost of repairing damage that is intentional.
The damage in question consists of a small circular dent in a toilet wall, and a dent in the upper part of a wall in the stairwell. The tenant denies responsibility for the damage. The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The onus is on the landlord. The pre tenancy photograph of the area of wall in the toilet containing the dent is obscured by a small hand basin and cabinet. The tenant has produced their own copy of the pre tenancy inspection report in which they noted existing damage not recorded by the then property manager, who has since left the employment of the landlord. A copy of this was provided to the landlord soon after the commencement of the tenancy. In my view considering the damages location it is possible that it has gone undetected by the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant also denies responsibility for the stairway wall dent, again referring to their copy of the pre tenancy inspection report which records damage to the area in the form of “some paint chips.” Mr Neal states that the damage discovered in the end of tenancy inspection is greater than “some paint chips” and consists of a deep dent approximately 3cm in diameter. The landlord has produced an enlarged photograph of the area of wall at the commencement of the tenancy which Mr Neal states shows no damage. Mr Neal believes the damage likely occurred during the removal of furniture from bedrooms located on the second floor. Unlike the end of tenancy photograph showing the damage, which has been taken at close up, the pre tenancy photograph has been taken at a distance and at an angle. Based on the photograph taken at the end of the tenancy I estimate the dent to be around 1cm in diameter.
The pre tenancy photograph of the affected area of wall is not sufficiently clear. Considering the dent’s size, the angle, distance, and lighting in the pre tenancy photograph, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that the damage was not present at the commencement of the tenancy, and, like the small dent in the toilet, was not detected by the previous property manager.
The claims for damage are dismissed. Costs
As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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.
Although the landlord would have been entitled to do so, they do not seek name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successfully defending the claims made against them, seeks, and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612089. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $158.44 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Toi & Toi Holdings Limited , as calculated in the table below. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $2,201.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Neal and Ms Chung appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 19 March 2021 and ended on 15 May 2023. On 21 June 2023, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant was responsible for staining to the carpet in the living room and damage to walls.
The landlord is claiming $138.00 to remove the stain, and $126.50 to repair the damage. Stain
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
Mr Neal states that at the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered a 30cm circular brown stain on the carpet in the lounge. The landlord has provided pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports, both of which include photographs. I am satisfied that the stain was not present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledges that the stain occurred during the tenancy and formed beneath a pot plant. The cleaners invoice states the stain is consistent with having been caused by an overwatered pot plant. The stain was successfully removed. The landlord is seeking compensation of $138.00, which they state is the minimum call out charge. The tenant questions the reasonableness of the amount claimed and has provided an alternative quote from another cleaner to remove the stain for $92.00. The tenant described the stain to the cleaner via email but did not provide a photograph. Having considered the evidence, the amount claimed is reasonable and award it in full.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed in a claim for damage the landlord must establish more likely than not that the damage 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.
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, which in this case is $650.00 per claim. Tenants are liable for the full cost of repairing damage that is intentional.
The damage in question consists of a small circular dent in a toilet wall, and a dent in the upper part of a wall in the stairwell. The tenant denies responsibility for the damage. The issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The onus is on the landlord. The pre tenancy photograph of the area of wall in the toilet containing the dent is obscured by a small hand basin and cabinet. The tenant has produced their own copy of the pre tenancy inspection report in which they noted existing damage not recorded by the then property manager, who has since left the employment of the landlord. A copy of this was provided to the landlord soon after the commencement of the tenancy. In my view considering the damages location it is possible that it has gone undetected by the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant also denies responsibility for the stairway wall dent, again referring to their copy of the pre tenancy inspection report which records damage to the area in the form of “some paint chips.” Mr Neal states that the damage discovered in the end of tenancy inspection is greater than “some paint chips” and consists of a deep dent approximately 3cm in diameter. The landlord has produced an enlarged photograph of the area of wall at the commencement of the tenancy which Mr Neal states shows no damage. Mr Neal believes the damage likely occurred during the removal of furniture from bedrooms located on the second floor. Unlike the end of tenancy photograph showing the damage, which has been taken at close up, the pre tenancy photograph has been taken at a distance and at an angle. Based on the photograph taken at the end of the tenancy I estimate the dent to be around 1cm in diameter.
The pre tenancy photograph of the affected area of wall is not sufficiently clear. Considering the dent’s size, the angle, distance, and lighting in the pre tenancy photograph, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that the damage was not present at the commencement of the tenancy, and, like the small dent in the toilet, was not detected by the previous property manager.
The claims for damage are dismissed. Costs
As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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.
Although the landlord would have been entitled to do so, they do not seek name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successfully defending the claims made against them, seeks, and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612089 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612089 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions