How much money was awarded in case 4616569?

Cleaning: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Credit Following Sale Of Goods To Te…: $859.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $91.23 awarded to landlord; Plug: $16.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $156.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $353.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4616569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4616569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9648482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4616569?

Cleaning: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Credit Following Sale Of Goods To Te…: $859.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $91.23 awarded to landlord; Plug: $16.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $156.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $353.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4616569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4616569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9648482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4616569 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4616569 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4616569 — net $509.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Oven knob replacement	$91.23		Repairs: Oven knob replacement
Repairs: Plug	$16.88		Repairs: Plug
Cleaning, labour for rubbish/items removal and gardening	$730.00		Cleaning, labour for rubbish/items removal and gardening
Rubbish removal: Skip	$353.30		Rubbish removal: Skip
Rubbish removal: Refuge station fee	$156.20		Rubbish removal: Refuge station fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit following sale of goods to tenant		$859.00	Credit following sale of goods to tenant
Total award	$1,368.05	$859.00
Net award	$509.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$509.05

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Steven Powell must pay [The landlord/s] $509.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for slander is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for damage to the laundry floor is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Both [The property manager/s] for [The property management company] and [The landlord/s] attended. I am satisfied the tenant has been served with the application as he has been in contact with Tenancy Services about it since it was served and therefore the hearing proceeded in his absence.

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

The tenancy ended on 30 January 2023 following an order made by the Tribunal for rent arrears.

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.

The landlord claims for cleaning costs, gardening costs and disposal costs associated with items left at the premises.

The tenant left the premises leaving many items behind including large items of furniture, smaller items such as kitchen equipment as well as personal items. The landlord says that the tenant simply left the property leaving the content of his home behind. This was supported by the photographs provided taken at the end of the tenancy. For example, dishes were still in the dishwasher and in the kitchen cupboards. The property had clearly not been cleaned. The tenant returned but only collected two fish tanks.

The landlord had to dispose of the tenant’s items. Items left outside, including a couch, as well as contents of the rubbish bins and perishable items were put in a skip, other items were stored and then later taken elsewhere. After 40 days some items were taken to the refuge station and some items were sold.

At the end of the tenancy the garden had very long lawns and garden beds throughout were very overgrown. The landlord says that the gardening work undertaken involved weed whacking, mowing, weeding and trimming bushes including a large lavender hedge, large yuccas by the side of house and a purple flowering plant. The garden waste was put in the skip.

Detailed photographic evidence was provided of both the garden and the interior of the property and the goods left behind to support this claim.

I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord seeks compensation for the following amounts relating to the cleaning, gardening and rubbish/items: a. Rubbish disposal $453.20 for a skip b. Rubbish disposal $156.20 for refuge station costs c. Cleaning, labour for the rubbish/items, gardening and water blasting - $1960.00 d. Cleaning - $125.00

I am satisfied that the sum of $156.20 for refuge station fees is reasonable considering the number of items that were taken to the refuge station. This included a stool, mattresses, a fan, a bunk bed set with missing parts, cabinet, bathroom items, vacuum cleaner, MDF shelving, cot frame, linen, clothing and miscellaneous items. I award this sum.

Some items left by the tenant were placed in a skip. Some of the waste also placed in that skip related to the removal of yuccas and portions of large bushes. Other general garden waste was also put in the skip. The tenant is not responsible for the disposal of the garden waste created by the pruning of trees, shrubs and hedges because this is work a landlord is responsible for. The skip was a 9m3 skip. I have reduced the amount sought in relation to the skip by $100 to take into account the disposal of this garden waste which I estimate to be reasonable based on the photographic and video evidence seen. I award $353.30.

The invoice for $1960 is for work undertaken by the landlord and her partner. They were assisted for 5 hours by someone else who provided a separate invoice for $125 for cleaning.

The costs claimed for cleaning, the labour for moving items, gardening and water blasting requires additional consideration.

The invoice for $1960 includes work for water blasting the house, fence and cleaning exterior windows. Water blasting the house and fence are not tenant responsibilities. The tenant should not have to pay for this. There was no evidence that the exterior of the windows were not reasonably clean. The landlord claimed 8 hours at $35 per hour ($280) in respect of this work. This is not awarded.

The invoice for $1960 refers to deep cleaning of the property. It refers to cleaning the house from top to bottom including cleaning the ceilings and walls. A deep clean is not the standard required of a tenant when leaving a property. While landlord may choose to undertake a deep clean between tenancies, this a business decision for the landlord and the tenant need only leave a property reasonably clean and tidy.

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 property is a 3-bedroom property with lounge/kitchen/dining and two bathrooms and garage. I am satisfied that the bathroom and kitchen required more significant attention and other rooms required some attention.

Including the invoice for $125 the landlord is claiming for 31 hours of cleaning. I find this to be wholly excessive. I award $350 in respect of the cleaning which I consider to be a reasonable sum based on the photographic evidence presented.

6 hours at $35 is claimed for gardening ($210). Some of the gardening included trimming trees and bushes which the tenant is not responsible for. I award the sum of $180 in respect of gardening to take this into account. This sum is reasonable considering the condition of the garden at the end of the tenancy based on the evidence presented.

16 hours were claimed for the removal of furniture. This included taking items to a skip and taking time to sort through the items and storing them and then moving them elsewhere. I consider this to be excessive. Items that clearly had no value were transported to a different location before being disposed of. Taking into account the volume and nature of the items I consider the sum of $200 to be reasonable as a sum for labour costs associated with the disposal of the goods.

This means that the overall sum I have awarded for the cleaning, labour costs associated with moving items left and gardening work is $730.00. Sale of items

After retaining items for 40 days the landlord sold a number of items including a dining set, stools, a number of items of kitchenware, lawnmower, pet cage, microwave, art, children’s fishing rod, air fryer, bike wheels, mops and cleaning items, fridge, laundry basket and electric toothbrush, entertainment unit, plastic unit, 3 set of drawers, washing machine, bed bases, vacuum cleaner and airer.

The landlord says that these remaining items sold for a total of $859 and provided a detailed breakdown of this.

I find the sums attributed to the sale of the items by the landlord to be reasonable. The landlord credits the tenant with this sum.

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 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 says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the floor - $500 insurance excess b. Damage to oven knobs - $91.23 to replace 4 knobs c. A missing plug - $16.88 Oven knobs

At the start of the tenancy 4 of 6 oven knobs were on the oven. The landlord had a photograph of this. At the end of the tenancy the landlord says that 4 oven knobs had gone missing/were broken. A photograph was provided of the oven which shows two knobs on it at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says she replaced one of the knobs with a temporary knob and the other is a broken knob.

I am satisfied that 4 oven knobs went missing or were broken during the course of the tenancy. At the hearing the landlord explained how the knobs had to be used in a certain way and that this had been explained to the tenant. Given the number of knobs effected I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It is most likely careless damage. The landlord’s insurance excess is $500.

The landlord had a quote for the replacement of the missing/broken oven knobs. I heard that the knobs have since been replaced. I do not depreciate the items because they are items that are not prone to deterioration. I am satisfied that the sum claimed is reflective of the landlord’s loss and is reasonable.

I therefore award the landlord $91.23 in relation to the oven knobs. Laundry floor

During the course of the tenancy the laundry floor was damaged.

The landlord said this was due to the tenant’s washing machine leaking.

The landlord made an insurance claim and received a cash pay-out. The landlord seeks the excess of $500.

I consider a leaking washing machine to most likely be accidental damage. Therefore, the tenant is not responsible for the excess.

In any event, even if I had found the tenant to be responsible there is no invoice to support the landlord suffering a loss as a result of this damage. The landlord received a cash pay-out but the remedial work had been undertaken by her father using second-hand materials.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Kitchen plug

The landlord says a plug is missing in the kitchen. In the absence of contrary evidence from the tenant and on the basis that the landlord lived in the premises prior to the tenant I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that the plug was in the kitchen at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord provided a receipt for the replacement. I do not depreciate the item because it is not an item prone to deterioration. The amount ordered is proven. Exemplary damages – slander

The landlord says the tenant has been posting slanderous comments online about her. The landlord seeks exemplary damages. Any award of exemplary damages must be in consequence of the other party committing what is defined in the RTA as an unlawful act. No jurisdictional basis for this claim is established and it is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee

The landlord has been substantially successful in her application and so I award the filing fee.

The landlord sought name suppression in her application. The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award name suppression (s95A, RTA).

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4616569 — net $509.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Oven knob replacement	$91.23		Repairs: Oven knob replacement
Repairs: Plug	$16.88		Repairs: Plug
Cleaning, labour for rubbish/items removal and gardening	$730.00		Cleaning, labour for rubbish/items removal and gardening
Rubbish removal: Skip	$353.30		Rubbish removal: Skip
Rubbish removal: Refuge station fee	$156.20		Rubbish removal: Refuge station fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit following sale of goods to tenant		$859.00	Credit following sale of goods to tenant
Total award	$1,368.05	$859.00
Net award	$509.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$509.05