How much money was awarded in case 4628596?

Cleaning: $231.46 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; To The Walls And Ceilings: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628596?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628596?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9545803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4628596?

Cleaning: $231.46 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; To The Walls And Ceilings: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628596?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628596?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9545803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4628596 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4628596 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 4628596 — net $951.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$231.46	Cleaning
Repairs: to the walls and ceilings	$700.00	Repairs: to the walls and ceilings
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$951.90
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$951.90

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

William Marshall and Suzanne Montgomery to pay [The landlord/s] $951.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $951.90 William Marshall and Suzanne Montgomery: $1,448.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 obligation to clean?

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See sections 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).

I have considered the photos provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I can see the apartment was not left in a reasonable condition. The amount claimed by the landlord for cleaning and for cleaning materials is reasonable, although I have reduced the hourly rate to $25 an hour, which is just above minimum wage, and is the amount currently allowed for work carried out by the owners. The amounts ordered are proved.

I note there is a claim for a product to clean the deck. This is not allowed because outside work is considered to be landlord maintenance.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of repairing minor changes?

The landlord has claimed the cost of repairing holes after the tenants moved out, and for removing putty from around some of the windows. The tenants disputed these claims and said they were fair wear and tear from ordinary use of the apartment. They referred me to a previous decision of the Tribunal - 4308719 - which said that tenants were not liable for pin holes and picture hooks.

I do not accept this submission because the damage left at the end of the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear. There were screw holes left after shelving was removed, holes left after bolts were removed from the concrete ceilings, holes drilled through walls to run an ethernet cable, screw holes in the wardrobe doors, and sound reducing putty installed around two windows. The landlord counted 35 holes in one bedroom and 23 in the other.

Sections 42 – 42B of the RTA set out the law for minor changes during a tenancy. A “minor change” is any fixture or alteration that presents a low risk of material damage and allows the premises to be returned easily to substantially the same condition at the end of the tenancy. Usually the landlord must give written consent, but it is agreed evidence the consent was verbal here for most of the changes. The tenants then expanded on what was allowed and made other changes that suited them.

None of the holes in the ceilings, walls or doors were filled at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had to spend time removing bolts from the concrete ceilings and removing the putty from around the windows. The landlord submitted that this took a significant amount of time. The landlord also submitted that there were so many repairs the only sensible option was to paint the whole apartment. I find the landlord has proved the claims and should get compensation.

In allowing compensation I have to make sure the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. It is agreed evidence the walls were in a good condition at the start of the tenancy. I note that there would have been fair wear and tear of the painted walls during the tenancy anyway.

I have carefully considered the photos. I can see that some of the walls would have needed painting. I do not have any evidence to suggest the ceilings needed to be painted rather than the repairs spot painted. I find that some of the holes –where there is just one or the holes are low to the ground – could have been spot painted. I allow all of the claim for removing the screws, putty etc, and for plastering and sanding. I allow 10 hours for painting and a reduced amount for paint, which seems reasonable to me to return the apartment to substantially the same condition. I allow $700 in total for the repairs. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord has applied for suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See section 95A RTA.

I have allowed the landlord’s application for suppression because it is the most successful party.

A request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4628596 — net $951.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$231.46	Cleaning
Repairs: to the walls and ceilings	$700.00	Repairs: to the walls and ceilings
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$951.90
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$951.90

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

William Marshall and Suzanne Montgomery to pay [The landlord/s] $951.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $951.90 William Marshall and Suzanne Montgomery: $1,448.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 obligation to clean?

I note there is a claim for a product to clean the deck. This is not allowed because outside work is considered to be landlord maintenance.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of repairing minor changes?

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I have allowed the landlord’s application for suppression because it is the most successful party.

A request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628596 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628596 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligation to clean?

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of repairing minor changes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligation to clean?

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of repairing minor changes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions