What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4629629 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 4629629?

Property Damage: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $340.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629629?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9627353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4629629 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 4629629?

Property Damage: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $340.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629629?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9627353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4629629 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4629629 — net $1,542.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repair	$552.00	wn the Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $552.00 towards the wall repair. The expired quote records $453.79 to repair th…
Carpet repair	$340.34	t. The Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $340.34 towards the carpet repair.
Stove top repair	$650.00	ibunal orders payment for the cooktop repair limited to the insurance excess of $650.00. The amounts ordered will be deducted from the bond lodged.
Net award	$1,542.34
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,542.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,542.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,542.34 [The tenant/s]: $977.66

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants rented a home from the landlord for a one year fixed term from 12 May 2022 to 11 May 2023.
Following the end of the tenancy the tenants sought to resolve the bond refund with the landlord and when this was unsuccessful, they filed an application in the Tribunal on 13 July 2023.
The matter was set down for a teleconference hearing on 24 August 2023. On 23 August 2023 the landlord filed a cross application for vacated costs and the hearing was adjourned to today’s date for both applications to be considered together.
The tenants seek refund of the bond. The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord proves a claim against the bond.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation for cleaning, damage repairs to wall carpet and cooktop, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord also sought rent arrears, however, this was not included in the landlord application filed. The tenants stated that they had no knowledge rent arrears were sought until today and have had no request for rent arrears since the tenancy ended. They dispute the claim.
It is now six months since the end of the tenancy and the tenant seeks a decision on the bond. The Tribunal considers it fair and expeditious that the hearing today proceeds on the basis of the claims filed. If the landlord wishes to pursue rent arrears then a further application will need to be filed in the usual way.

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 claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and sought $160 for cleaning. No photographs or invoice were provided by the landlord. The landlord advised the cleaning was a cash job. The tenants arranged a cleaner at the end of the tenancy and provided some photos of issues they said the landlord had raised with them which showed very little apart from one marked oven tray.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have considered the evidence and find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the living room wall, damage to the carpet on one stair and a crack in the cooktop. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants accept liability for the damage but stated they have been waiting for details of the cost to repair. Compensation/Bond
The landlord advised that the repairs have not yet been done. A quote has been provided from [contractor] which is dated 22 August 2023 and expired on 21 September 2023. The landlord advised that this is a maintenance company that subcontracts to [the landlord]. The landlord advised that the property is insured, and the excess is $650. The landlord could not advise whether the cooktop was excluded from cover or whether a claim had been made by the owner. In these circumstances where actual costs have not been provided the Tribunal must take a conservative approach when ordering compensation to remedy the damage.
The landlord is GST registered and entitled to claim a GST refund so compensation will be ordered GST exclusive. The expired quote records $736.00 to repair the living room wall. As the actual cost is unknown the Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $552.00 towards the wall repair. The expired quote records $453.79 to repair the carpet. The Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $340.34 towards the carpet repair. The Tribunal orders payment for the cooktop repair limited to the insurance excess of $650.00. The amounts ordered will be deducted from the bond lodged.
The balance of the bond is refunded to the tenants. Filing fee/Suppression
Because both parties have had some success with their application I make no order regarding filing fee reimbursement for either party.
Both parties seek suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. The Tribunal may make the order having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had success in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4629629 — net $1,542.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repair	$552.00	wn the Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $552.00 towards the wall repair. The expired quote records $453.79 to repair th…
Carpet repair	$340.34	t. The Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $340.34 towards the carpet repair.
Stove top repair	$650.00	ibunal orders payment for the cooktop repair limited to the insurance excess of $650.00. The amounts ordered will be deducted from the bond lodged.
Net award	$1,542.34
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,542.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,542.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,542.34 [The tenant/s]: $977.66

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants rented a home from the landlord for a one year fixed term from 12 May 2022 to 11 May 2023.
Following the end of the tenancy the tenants sought to resolve the bond refund with the landlord and when this was unsuccessful, they filed an application in the Tribunal on 13 July 2023.
The matter was set down for a teleconference hearing on 24 August 2023. On 23 August 2023 the landlord filed a cross application for vacated costs and the hearing was adjourned to today’s date for both applications to be considered together.
The tenants seek refund of the bond. The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord proves a claim against the bond.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation for cleaning, damage repairs to wall carpet and cooktop, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord also sought rent arrears, however, this was not included in the landlord application filed. The tenants stated that they had no knowledge rent arrears were sought until today and have had no request for rent arrears since the tenancy ended. They dispute the claim.
It is now six months since the end of the tenancy and the tenant seeks a decision on the bond. The Tribunal considers it fair and expeditious that the hearing today proceeds on the basis of the claims filed. If the landlord wishes to pursue rent arrears then a further application will need to be filed in the usual way.

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 claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and sought $160 for cleaning. No photographs or invoice were provided by the landlord. The landlord advised the cleaning was a cash job. The tenants arranged a cleaner at the end of the tenancy and provided some photos of issues they said the landlord had raised with them which showed very little apart from one marked oven tray.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have considered the evidence and find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the living room wall, damage to the carpet on one stair and a crack in the cooktop. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants accept liability for the damage but stated they have been waiting for details of the cost to repair. Compensation/Bond
The landlord advised that the repairs have not yet been done. A quote has been provided from [contractor] which is dated 22 August 2023 and expired on 21 September 2023. The landlord advised that this is a maintenance company that subcontracts to [the landlord]. The landlord advised that the property is insured, and the excess is $650. The landlord could not advise whether the cooktop was excluded from cover or whether a claim had been made by the owner. In these circumstances where actual costs have not been provided the Tribunal must take a conservative approach when ordering compensation to remedy the damage.
The landlord is GST registered and entitled to claim a GST refund so compensation will be ordered GST exclusive. The expired quote records $736.00 to repair the living room wall. As the actual cost is unknown the Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $552.00 towards the wall repair. The expired quote records $453.79 to repair the carpet. The Tribunal has discounted this amount by 25% and orders the tenants to pay $340.34 towards the carpet repair. The Tribunal orders payment for the cooktop repair limited to the insurance excess of $650.00. The amounts ordered will be deducted from the bond lodged.
The balance of the bond is refunded to the tenants. Filing fee/Suppression
Because both parties have had some success with their application I make no order regarding filing fee reimbursement for either party.
Both parties seek suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. The Tribunal may make the order having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had success in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629629 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629629 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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