What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630469 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 4630469?

Cleaning: $166.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $51.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630469?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9794596-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630469 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 4630469?

Cleaning: $166.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $51.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630469?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9794596-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630469 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630469 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630469 — net $2,569.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$51.79	Water rates
Cleaning	$166.48	Cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$60.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs to carpet	$391.00	Repairs to carpet
Repairs to garage door	$500.00	Repairs to garage door
Repairs to walls	$1,380.00	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,569.71
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,569.71

Claims and awards for application 4630469 — net $2,569.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $51.79
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $166.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and garden work

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work

Repairs to carpet

Amount: $391.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to carpet

Repairs to garage door

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to garage door

Repairs to walls

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,569.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
44 Total award$2,569.71 Bond$2,569.71$150.29
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,569.71 [The tenant/s]: $150.29
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord/s representatives], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants. A file note records a phone call from one of the tenants advising they were overseas. However, no written request for an adjournment has been received. It is unclear whether the second tenant was also overseas. Neither of the tenants has arranged to attend by telephone. Therefore, in the absence of an adjournment request and, after delaying the start of the hearing to give the tenants the opportunity to attend, the hearing proceeded.
This tenancy began on 24 July 2020 and ended on 27 June 2023. The rent is $710.00 and a bond of $2,720.00 was paid.
The landlord completed a final inspection of the premises on 28 June 2023 and noted that further cleaning was required, some weeding needed to be attended to and some damage was noted to the garage door, walls and carpet.
The tenants filed an application (number 4630469), seeking the return of their bond in full, and compensation of $5000.00, noting concerns regarding compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) with reference to the installation of a heat pump. The landlord has filed a cross application (4633009) claiming water charges and compensation for cleaning, gardening, and repairs to carpet, walls, and a garage door. Both applications were heard together. Tenants’ application: 4630469
The landlord has responded to the tenants’ application, explaining the background facts. As the tenants have not appeared at the hearing, this application is dismissed. Landlord’s application: 4633009

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks $51.79, being the final amount for water charges. This tenancy ended on 27 June 2023. The landlord provided the [water bill] invoice, and confirms the amount due is for the tenant’s usage. The landlord has also provided an email from the tenant accepting liability for the last water account. Therefore, the water charges have been established.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims cleaning (including carpet cleaning) and gardening costs. The landlord has provided evidence, including invoices and inspection reports, with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy, and prior to the tenancy commencing.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment “to be made after consideration of all the evidence.” 2
Therefore, “reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 This does not equate to being commercially clean, 4 spotless, 5 or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8
In this case, the landlord’s evidence establishes that some further cleaning and gardening was required. However, the full cleaning and gardening costs claimed by the landlord are not awarded, since the tenants do not have to leave the premises in a spotless condition. From the landlord’s claimed cleaning costs of $332.95, I award $166.48, being 50% of the cleaning invoice. Given the condition of the garden and the minimal amount of weeding required, I award $60.00, being 50% of the $120.00 invoice for gardening.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, the 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. 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens at [19]. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 6 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 7 Richards v Scally (above) 8 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the 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.
In this case the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $500.00. The rent for the premises is $710.00 per week.
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.
From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including the relevant invoice/quote for repairs), I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to carpet in the study: the carpet was stained, and the stain could not be removed with professional cleaning. The quotation provided is for the repair of the carpet, involving the stained area of carpet being removed and that area being patched using carpet from another area (from the wardrobe). The landlord advises that the tenant accepted liability for this damage. b. Damage to the garage door: the landlord states that the garage door was damaged after a vehicle backed into it. The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500.00 for replacement of the garage door. The actual cost of the replacement door is $1,540.00. c. Wall damage: the landlord has provided detailed evidence regarding the damage to multiple walls in the house. Thirteen separate areas have been identified. The landlord’s evidence is that the tenants had undertaken the repairs themselves without notifying them. The landlord considers the work to be substandard, noting that the incorrect paint type and colour was used. As the insurer would likely treat each as a separate event, a claim was not made through insurance. The cost of repairing and repainting the affected areas, as shown in the quotation, is $1,380.00, which is awarded.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression for both parties. Being the successful party, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. While noting that the tenants are the unsuccessful party, and, having had regard to the public interest, it is considered that, due to the individual circumstances in this case, the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in the tenants being identified. Therefore, name suppression is also granted for the tenants.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630469 — net $2,569.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$51.79	Water rates
Cleaning	$166.48	Cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$60.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs to carpet	$391.00	Repairs to carpet
Repairs to garage door	$500.00	Repairs to garage door
Repairs to walls	$1,380.00	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,569.71
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,569.71

Claims and awards for application 4630469 — net $2,569.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $51.79
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $166.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and garden work

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work

Repairs to carpet

Amount: $391.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to carpet

Repairs to garage door

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to garage door

Repairs to walls

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,569.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
44 Total award$2,569.71 Bond$2,569.71$150.29
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,569.71 [The tenant/s]: $150.29
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord/s representatives], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants. A file note records a phone call from one of the tenants advising they were overseas. However, no written request for an adjournment has been received. It is unclear whether the second tenant was also overseas. Neither of the tenants has arranged to attend by telephone. Therefore, in the absence of an adjournment request and, after delaying the start of the hearing to give the tenants the opportunity to attend, the hearing proceeded.
This tenancy began on 24 July 2020 and ended on 27 June 2023. The rent is $710.00 and a bond of $2,720.00 was paid.
The landlord completed a final inspection of the premises on 28 June 2023 and noted that further cleaning was required, some weeding needed to be attended to and some damage was noted to the garage door, walls and carpet.
The tenants filed an application (number 4630469), seeking the return of their bond in full, and compensation of $5000.00, noting concerns regarding compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) with reference to the installation of a heat pump. The landlord has filed a cross application (4633009) claiming water charges and compensation for cleaning, gardening, and repairs to carpet, walls, and a garage door. Both applications were heard together. Tenants’ application: 4630469
The landlord has responded to the tenants’ application, explaining the background facts. As the tenants have not appeared at the hearing, this application is dismissed. Landlord’s application: 4633009

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks $51.79, being the final amount for water charges. This tenancy ended on 27 June 2023. The landlord provided the [water bill] invoice, and confirms the amount due is for the tenant’s usage. The landlord has also provided an email from the tenant accepting liability for the last water account. Therefore, the water charges have been established.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims cleaning (including carpet cleaning) and gardening costs. The landlord has provided evidence, including invoices and inspection reports, with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy, and prior to the tenancy commencing.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment “to be made after consideration of all the evidence.” 2
Therefore, “reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 This does not equate to being commercially clean, 4 spotless, 5 or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8
In this case, the landlord’s evidence establishes that some further cleaning and gardening was required. However, the full cleaning and gardening costs claimed by the landlord are not awarded, since the tenants do not have to leave the premises in a spotless condition. From the landlord’s claimed cleaning costs of $332.95, I award $166.48, being 50% of the cleaning invoice. Given the condition of the garden and the minimal amount of weeding required, I award $60.00, being 50% of the $120.00 invoice for gardening.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, the 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. 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens at [19]. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 6 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 7 Richards v Scally (above) 8 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the 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.
In this case the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $500.00. The rent for the premises is $710.00 per week.
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.
From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including the relevant invoice/quote for repairs), I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to carpet in the study: the carpet was stained, and the stain could not be removed with professional cleaning. The quotation provided is for the repair of the carpet, involving the stained area of carpet being removed and that area being patched using carpet from another area (from the wardrobe). The landlord advises that the tenant accepted liability for this damage. b. Damage to the garage door: the landlord states that the garage door was damaged after a vehicle backed into it. The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500.00 for replacement of the garage door. The actual cost of the replacement door is $1,540.00. c. Wall damage: the landlord has provided detailed evidence regarding the damage to multiple walls in the house. Thirteen separate areas have been identified. The landlord’s evidence is that the tenants had undertaken the repairs themselves without notifying them. The landlord considers the work to be substandard, noting that the incorrect paint type and colour was used. As the insurer would likely treat each as a separate event, a claim was not made through insurance. The cost of repairing and repainting the affected areas, as shown in the quotation, is $1,380.00, which is awarded.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression for both parties. Being the successful party, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. While noting that the tenants are the unsuccessful party, and, having had regard to the public interest, it is considered that, due to the individual circumstances in this case, the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in the tenants being identified. Therefore, name suppression is also granted for the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630469 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630469 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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