What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4630656?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4630656?

Cleaning: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630656?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9477791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4630656?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4630656?

Cleaning: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630656?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9477791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 43A, Muster Road, Jacks Point, RD1, Queenstown Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630656 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630656. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$77.00		Cleaning
Curtain replacement and dry cleaning	$150.00		both parties have led to the curtains being damaged. I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the curtain replacement and dry cleaning costs.

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 (6404183-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Thilo Kellner: $227.00 Pemo Sangye Theodore: $473.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenanted premises are at flat 43A, Muster Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown (“the premises”).The tenancy commenced on 18 October 2021 and ended on 14 July 2023.
The tenant has applied for the release of her bond.
The landlord has lodged a cross claim for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. General Law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter, the presumption from which I commence is that the bond is the tenant’s money. The tenant is entitled to return of the bond unless the landlord is successful in his claim, in which case the bond money is to be released to the landlord to the extent of that success. The onus or job of proving the landlord claims fall on the landlord.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

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 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) 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 landlord provided photos of the premises in support of his claim. The photos show some areas (particularly the oven interior and window sills) which I do not accept were reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant also provided photos which show that generally the premises were reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said that she had spent the last 3 days of her tenancy cleaning.
The landlord accepted in evidence that the cleaning claimed ($260.00 for labour at $26.00 per hour for landlord labour and $50.00 for cleaning materials) was to bring the premises back to a standard where the premises could be relet. As indicted previously, the standard required of the tenant is “reasonably clean and tidy”. It is generally accepted that this is a lower standard than that which a landlord may require for new tenants.
Having viewed the photos and considered the evidence of the parties, I award the landlord $52.00 for two hours labour and $25.00 for materials, a total of $77.00. In the view of the Tribunal, that would have been sufficient cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

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 claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken screws in water cylinder cupboard. The landlord says that screws in the water cylinder cupboard have been broken off flush with the wall during the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for plastering at a cost of $115.00. The tenant said that she had not installed anything in the drying cupboard and knew nothing of the screws that had been broken off. The first question for me to consider is whether the damage occurred during the tenancy. There is no reference to any damage in the pre tenancy inspection report, although that is not determinative as the area of damage is very small. The onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. The only evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy is the oral evidence of the respective parties. As a result, I am not convinced that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the application is dismissed. Curtains The landlord says that the curtains were damaged by mould during the tenancy and that the mould was caused by the tenant’s failure to properly ventilate the premises. The landlord attempted to have the mould stains removed by drycleaning at the end of the tenancy. The dry cleaner was unsuccessful. The landlord seeks compensation of $56.00 for the dry cleaning and $218.01 for the replacement curtain. I accept that the damage to the curtains occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the onus of disproving liability for the damage is on the tenant. The tenant accepts that she did not ventilate the house. The tenant says that the reason for this was a landlord failure to attend to her concerns about a spider infestation on the exterior of the premises. She says that the landlord said that he would spray the spider webs, but had not done so a year later. The tenant said that she used brass bowls and rock salt to reduce the level of moisture. Photos were provided of the exterior of the house which certainly show extensive spider webs. The tenant advised the landlord of the problem and the landlord failed to take steps for a year to address the issue. I consider that there has been a degree of contributory negligence in the landlord’s failure to attend to the issue. But having said that, the tenants action in simply failing to ventilate the premises has exacerbated the problem. The tenant could have used a dehumidifier to address the humidity issue. I find that the actions of both parties have led to the curtains being damaged. I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the curtain replacement and dry cleaning costs. The reduced amount takes into account the landlord’s actions and betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant 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 of the curtains. Damage to panel on garage. The landlord says that a panel on the exterior of the garage was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord accepts that he is not sure how the damage occurred. The tenant said that she knew nothing of it. The onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear is o the landlord. I am not persuaded on the limited evidence provided that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.
The tenant did not apply for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630656. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$77.00		Cleaning
Curtain replacement and dry cleaning	$150.00		both parties have led to the curtains being damaged. I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the curtain replacement and dry cleaning costs.

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 (6404183-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Thilo Kellner: $227.00 Pemo Sangye Theodore: $473.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenanted premises are at flat 43A, Muster Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown (“the premises”).The tenancy commenced on 18 October 2021 and ended on 14 July 2023.
The tenant has applied for the release of her bond.
The landlord has lodged a cross claim for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. General Law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter, the presumption from which I commence is that the bond is the tenant’s money. The tenant is entitled to return of the bond unless the landlord is successful in his claim, in which case the bond money is to be released to the landlord to the extent of that success. The onus or job of proving the landlord claims fall on the landlord.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

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 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) 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 landlord provided photos of the premises in support of his claim. The photos show some areas (particularly the oven interior and window sills) which I do not accept were reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant also provided photos which show that generally the premises were reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant said that she had spent the last 3 days of her tenancy cleaning.
The landlord accepted in evidence that the cleaning claimed ($260.00 for labour at $26.00 per hour for landlord labour and $50.00 for cleaning materials) was to bring the premises back to a standard where the premises could be relet. As indicted previously, the standard required of the tenant is “reasonably clean and tidy”. It is generally accepted that this is a lower standard than that which a landlord may require for new tenants.
Having viewed the photos and considered the evidence of the parties, I award the landlord $52.00 for two hours labour and $25.00 for materials, a total of $77.00. In the view of the Tribunal, that would have been sufficient cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

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 claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken screws in water cylinder cupboard. The landlord says that screws in the water cylinder cupboard have been broken off flush with the wall during the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for plastering at a cost of $115.00. The tenant said that she had not installed anything in the drying cupboard and knew nothing of the screws that had been broken off. The first question for me to consider is whether the damage occurred during the tenancy. There is no reference to any damage in the pre tenancy inspection report, although that is not determinative as the area of damage is very small. The onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. The only evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy is the oral evidence of the respective parties. As a result, I am not convinced that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the application is dismissed. Curtains The landlord says that the curtains were damaged by mould during the tenancy and that the mould was caused by the tenant’s failure to properly ventilate the premises. The landlord attempted to have the mould stains removed by drycleaning at the end of the tenancy. The dry cleaner was unsuccessful. The landlord seeks compensation of $56.00 for the dry cleaning and $218.01 for the replacement curtain. I accept that the damage to the curtains occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the onus of disproving liability for the damage is on the tenant. The tenant accepts that she did not ventilate the house. The tenant says that the reason for this was a landlord failure to attend to her concerns about a spider infestation on the exterior of the premises. She says that the landlord said that he would spray the spider webs, but had not done so a year later. The tenant said that she used brass bowls and rock salt to reduce the level of moisture. Photos were provided of the exterior of the house which certainly show extensive spider webs. The tenant advised the landlord of the problem and the landlord failed to take steps for a year to address the issue. I consider that there has been a degree of contributory negligence in the landlord’s failure to attend to the issue. But having said that, the tenants action in simply failing to ventilate the premises has exacerbated the problem. The tenant could have used a dehumidifier to address the humidity issue. I find that the actions of both parties have led to the curtains being damaged. I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the curtain replacement and dry cleaning costs. The reduced amount takes into account the landlord’s actions and betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant 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 of the curtains. Damage to panel on garage. The landlord says that a panel on the exterior of the garage was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord accepts that he is not sure how the damage occurred. The tenant said that she knew nothing of it. The onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear is o the landlord. I am not persuaded on the limited evidence provided that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.
The tenant did not apply for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630656 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 43A, Muster Road, Jacks Point, RD1, Queenstown

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630656 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 43A, Muster Road, Jacks Point, RD1, Queenstown

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

Claims & awards

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