What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4622929 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 4622929?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $181.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622929?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9347033-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4622929 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 4622929?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $181.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622929?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9347033-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4622929 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4622929 — net $480.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning: including stain removal	$299.00	Carpet cleaning: including stain removal
Cleaning – part cost awarded	$181.75	Cleaning – part cost awarded
Net award	$480.75
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$480.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay The Property Boss Limited as agent for Subculture Limited $480.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Property Boss Limited as agent for Subculture Limited: $480.75 [The tenant/s]: $1,319.25
The application for the replacement cost of the kitchen bench is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ganda-Wilson and Ms Horne represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed the cost of carpet cleaning and stain removal.
The tenant suggested that this claim was fair wear and tear in a tenancy of 2 years’ length.
Fair wear and tear relates to claims for compensation for damage, not to cleaning claims.
The landlord’s photos, produced in evidence, prove that the carpets needed to be cleaned and have stains removed.
I find the claim for carpet cleaning and stain removal proved.
The landlord has claimed for cleaning the premises. The invoice produced in evidence simply states ‘full cleaning plus oven’.
The tenant produced evidence including photos from the start of the tenancy, that show cleaning was required then.
The landlord’s photos show that the oven, shower door glass and dishwasher filter were not left reasonably clean.
I have deducted $100.00 from the cleaning cost claimed. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. Tenants are not expected to leave premises clean to a standard where a new tenancy can immediately commence.
Ms Ganda-Wilson said that the oven cleaning was the major component of the cleaning invoice.
The deduction I have made addresses as best the Tribunal can the tenant’s statutory responsibility and the full cleaning undertaken.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench?

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 has claimed the replacement cost of the kitchen bench, including the sink which cannot be transferred from 1 unit to another.
The landlord’s insurer has declined the claim because it considers that the damage was not accidental but occurred gradually.
If the damage were found to be careless damage the tenant’s liability would be capped at the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent - $1,800.00.
The photos produced in evidence show a small area of discolouration at the back of the ceramic hob unit (and a very small, almost imperceptible area to one side).
The landlord claims that the tenant has caused careless damage by using oversized pots on the stove top causing heat to damage the bench surface at the back of the hob. That is supported by the report provided in evidence from the company asked to quote on the bench replacement.
The tenants gave evidence that they simply used the hob unit for cooking in the normal way. They denied using any unusual or oversized pots.
The photos produced in evidence do not show any unusual pots. Once appears to be a stockpot which is a usual component of any set of cookware.
The landlord’s claim is wholly unrealistic.
The discolouration has appeared gradually through normal use. Inspections over time did not pick up any damage.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they used the cooking hob for its intended purpose, for cooking.
Possibly there was a flaw with the choice of hob or the way in which it was installed or the choice of bench material, though the Tribunal has no evidence before it to make a finding about that.
The Tribunal does not accept that the tenants caused any careless damage. They simply used the cooking hob for the purpose it was intended. That discolouration has occurred over time, is inadvertent at most. But it is not careless damage, and certainly not intentional damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s application for the replacement cost of the kitchen bench. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $480.75 from the bond. The balance of the bond will be paid to the landlord.
The landlord’s application for the replacement cost of the kitchen bench is dismissed.
The tenants sought a name suppression order and are entitled to an order because their defence to the application is mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4622929 — net $480.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning: including stain removal	$299.00	Carpet cleaning: including stain removal
Cleaning – part cost awarded	$181.75	Cleaning – part cost awarded
Net award	$480.75
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$480.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay The Property Boss Limited as agent for Subculture Limited $480.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Property Boss Limited as agent for Subculture Limited: $480.75 [The tenant/s]: $1,319.25
The application for the replacement cost of the kitchen bench is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ganda-Wilson and Ms Horne represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed the cost of carpet cleaning and stain removal.
The tenant suggested that this claim was fair wear and tear in a tenancy of 2 years’ length.
Fair wear and tear relates to claims for compensation for damage, not to cleaning claims.
The landlord’s photos, produced in evidence, prove that the carpets needed to be cleaned and have stains removed.
I find the claim for carpet cleaning and stain removal proved.
The landlord has claimed for cleaning the premises. The invoice produced in evidence simply states ‘full cleaning plus oven’.
The tenant produced evidence including photos from the start of the tenancy, that show cleaning was required then.
The landlord’s photos show that the oven, shower door glass and dishwasher filter were not left reasonably clean.
I have deducted $100.00 from the cleaning cost claimed. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. Tenants are not expected to leave premises clean to a standard where a new tenancy can immediately commence.
Ms Ganda-Wilson said that the oven cleaning was the major component of the cleaning invoice.
The deduction I have made addresses as best the Tribunal can the tenant’s statutory responsibility and the full cleaning undertaken.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench?

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 has claimed the replacement cost of the kitchen bench, including the sink which cannot be transferred from 1 unit to another.
The landlord’s insurer has declined the claim because it considers that the damage was not accidental but occurred gradually.
If the damage were found to be careless damage the tenant’s liability would be capped at the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent - $1,800.00.
The photos produced in evidence show a small area of discolouration at the back of the ceramic hob unit (and a very small, almost imperceptible area to one side).
The landlord claims that the tenant has caused careless damage by using oversized pots on the stove top causing heat to damage the bench surface at the back of the hob. That is supported by the report provided in evidence from the company asked to quote on the bench replacement.
The tenants gave evidence that they simply used the hob unit for cooking in the normal way. They denied using any unusual or oversized pots.
The photos produced in evidence do not show any unusual pots. Once appears to be a stockpot which is a usual component of any set of cookware.
The landlord’s claim is wholly unrealistic.
The discolouration has appeared gradually through normal use. Inspections over time did not pick up any damage.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they used the cooking hob for its intended purpose, for cooking.
Possibly there was a flaw with the choice of hob or the way in which it was installed or the choice of bench material, though the Tribunal has no evidence before it to make a finding about that.
The Tribunal does not accept that the tenants caused any careless damage. They simply used the cooking hob for the purpose it was intended. That discolouration has occurred over time, is inadvertent at most. But it is not careless damage, and certainly not intentional damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s application for the replacement cost of the kitchen bench. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $480.75 from the bond. The balance of the bond will be paid to the landlord.
The landlord’s application for the replacement cost of the kitchen bench is dismissed.
The tenants sought a name suppression order and are entitled to an order because their defence to the application is mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622929 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622929 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions