What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4632371 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4632371?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Hire: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $725.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632371?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9368652-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4632371 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4632371?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Hire: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $725.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632371?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9368652-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

57 Hewer Crescent, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632371 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632371 — net $225.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: including cleaning materials	$450.00		Cleaning: including cleaning materials
Rubbish removal: section tidy (including tip fees & trailer	$725.00		Rubbish removal: section tidy (including tip fees & trailer
hire	$1,000.00		hire
Bond refund received		$2,400.00	Bond refund received
Total award	$2,175.00	$2,400.00
Net award		$225.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$225.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $225.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Wharton. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already recovered the bond but says the costs it has incurred for cleaning and damage exceeds the bond.
I have found, for the reasons explained below, that the landlord has not proved its claim for compensation in excess of the bond and, in fact, I find that the claims are less than the bond. Therefore, the landlord is to refund the excess to the tenant. It follows that this application for claims beyond the bond amount has failed and I decline to award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photographs produced in evidence.
The landlord arranged to clean and tidy the premises and remove rubbish and belongings using their own in-house team. They issued an invoice detailing the costs claimed but with little detail of the actual work involved. For example, the entry for cleaning simply says “Clean-2 cleaners”. An entry for materials costing $373 does not give a breakdown of the materials. Ms Wharton stated that it included cleaning materials and trailer hire—but the amounts of these individual items were not specified nor were any receipts for the items included. No receipts were produced for tip charges of $170.
I consider the amounts claimed by the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal and tidying the section are excessive on the basis that the amounts charged are not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. The hourly rates charged by the landlord of $90 plus GST are excessive for the nature of the work and beyond the usual commercial rates. In addition, the total amounts charged appear out of proportion and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amounts charged accordingly.
The landlord has included in their invoice charges for travel to the premises of $150 which I consider unreasonable. The amounts I have awarded under each category are inclusive of any and all expenses that might reasonably be charged including labour, materials, and travel.
The invoice also charges a health and safety fee of $35. It is not clear what this is for and why the tenants are being charged for it. However, again, I have awarded sums for each category which I consider reasonable to cover the whole job and associated expenses.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: There are 6 holes and dents in the walls of the premises in the entrance hallway, lounge and a bedroom that required patch repairs including plastering and painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims $1,620 plus GST to repair the damage which I consider is excessive for the work shown in the photos, and again not consistent with commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for this work. I have reduced the claim accordingly.
As the landlord has not succeeded in claiming for amounts in excess of the bond released to them by the tenant, they are not entitled to suppression orders. The tenant did not attend the hearing but given the result and the refund owed to the tenant, I consider it appropriate to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632371 — net $225.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: including cleaning materials	$450.00		Cleaning: including cleaning materials
Rubbish removal: section tidy (including tip fees & trailer	$725.00		Rubbish removal: section tidy (including tip fees & trailer
hire	$1,000.00		hire
Bond refund received		$2,400.00	Bond refund received
Total award	$2,175.00	$2,400.00
Net award		$225.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$225.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $225.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Wharton. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already recovered the bond but says the costs it has incurred for cleaning and damage exceeds the bond.
I have found, for the reasons explained below, that the landlord has not proved its claim for compensation in excess of the bond and, in fact, I find that the claims are less than the bond. Therefore, the landlord is to refund the excess to the tenant. It follows that this application for claims beyond the bond amount has failed and I decline to award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photographs produced in evidence.
The landlord arranged to clean and tidy the premises and remove rubbish and belongings using their own in-house team. They issued an invoice detailing the costs claimed but with little detail of the actual work involved. For example, the entry for cleaning simply says “Clean-2 cleaners”. An entry for materials costing $373 does not give a breakdown of the materials. Ms Wharton stated that it included cleaning materials and trailer hire—but the amounts of these individual items were not specified nor were any receipts for the items included. No receipts were produced for tip charges of $170.
I consider the amounts claimed by the landlord for cleaning, rubbish removal and tidying the section are excessive on the basis that the amounts charged are not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. The hourly rates charged by the landlord of $90 plus GST are excessive for the nature of the work and beyond the usual commercial rates. In addition, the total amounts charged appear out of proportion and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amounts charged accordingly.
The landlord has included in their invoice charges for travel to the premises of $150 which I consider unreasonable. The amounts I have awarded under each category are inclusive of any and all expenses that might reasonably be charged including labour, materials, and travel.
The invoice also charges a health and safety fee of $35. It is not clear what this is for and why the tenants are being charged for it. However, again, I have awarded sums for each category which I consider reasonable to cover the whole job and associated expenses.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: There are 6 holes and dents in the walls of the premises in the entrance hallway, lounge and a bedroom that required patch repairs including plastering and painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims $1,620 plus GST to repair the damage which I consider is excessive for the work shown in the photos, and again not consistent with commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for this work. I have reduced the claim accordingly.
As the landlord has not succeeded in claiming for amounts in excess of the bond released to them by the tenant, they are not entitled to suppression orders. The tenant did not attend the hearing but given the result and the refund owed to the tenant, I consider it appropriate to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632371 — Cleanliness at 57 Hewer Crescent, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632371 — Cleanliness at 57 Hewer Crescent, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011

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