What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4644830 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 4644830?

Cleaning: $419.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: (Bed Base: $305.82 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644830?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10023015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4644830 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 4644830?

Cleaning: $419.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: (Bed Base: $305.82 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644830?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10023015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4644830 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644830 — net $912.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: (oven, microwave, cupboards, fridge and dishwasher	$419.75	Cleaning: (oven, microwave, cupboards, fridge and dishwasher
Replace furnishings: (Bed base	$305.82	Replace furnishings: (Bed base
Rubbish removal: (broken furniture and other rubbish	$166.75	Rubbish removal: (broken furniture and other rubbish
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$912.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$912.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Michael Paul Regan Wilson must pay the landlord’s $912.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

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. Bond
During the hearing, the tenant confirmed that he had called Tenancy Services after his tenancy ended and was told that they could only release the bond to him if he had a signed approval from the landlord or if he had contacted the landlord about refunding his bond and got no reply within two months of his tenancy having been terminated.
Section 22D(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: The chief executive may take any steps that the chief executive considers reasonable in the circumstances to refund a bond held by the chief executive if the chief executive believes on reasonable grounds that— (a) the tenancy to which the bond relates has terminated and no claim is made for the bond within 2 months of the termination; or (b) an application for the refund of the bond has been approved but the bond money has not been collected within 2 months of the approval.
The tenant claims he sent an email to the property manager he was dealing with throughout most of his tenancy and got no response. He forwarded that email to the Bond Centre and told them he had not had any response. The Bond Centre confirmed it had not had any claim from the landlord for the Bond, so it paid the tenant the $1,460.00 bond using its s22D(1)(a) discretion.
The tenant has lost his phone and no longer has access to this email, so could not provide it in evidence. The landlord stated that it had never been received by it.
I find the tenant had the bond refunded to him using lawful means available to him and after seeking advice from Tenancy Services.

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 left much of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but left the oven, microwave, fridge, dishwasher and insides of cupboard unclean and in need of professional cleaning. The microwave had rotting food in it and food splatter all over the microwave door.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish from drawers and left a pile of broken furniture and an old ford car grill/bumper under the bed.
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 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 tenant damaged a bed base after he moved in and this needed to be replaced after his tenancy ended. The tenant claims the bed was unstable and broke as soon as he and his partner first sat on it, that they had raised this with the property manager and the property manager had done nothing to address this. As a result, the tenant claims he broke the bed base down and tried to dispose of it in the unit rubbish area and got chastised by the building manager and told to remove it. The tenant further claims he contacted the property manager and he said that he would collect and dispose of the broken bed base but never did. The tenant claims he should not be held liable for the broken bed for these reasons.
The tenant could not produce any emails he says he sent to the property manager and the property management company have looked through all this property manager’s emails and have been unable to find any such communications from the tenant.
From the entry and exit inspection photographs the bed was in sound condition on the tenant’s entry and broken into small pieces on his exit. I find the damage was caused during the tenancy: The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the lanldord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644830 — net $912.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: (oven, microwave, cupboards, fridge and dishwasher	$419.75	Cleaning: (oven, microwave, cupboards, fridge and dishwasher
Replace furnishings: (Bed base	$305.82	Replace furnishings: (Bed base
Rubbish removal: (broken furniture and other rubbish	$166.75	Rubbish removal: (broken furniture and other rubbish
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$912.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$912.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Michael Paul Regan Wilson must pay the landlord’s $912.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

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. Bond
During the hearing, the tenant confirmed that he had called Tenancy Services after his tenancy ended and was told that they could only release the bond to him if he had a signed approval from the landlord or if he had contacted the landlord about refunding his bond and got no reply within two months of his tenancy having been terminated.
Section 22D(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: The chief executive may take any steps that the chief executive considers reasonable in the circumstances to refund a bond held by the chief executive if the chief executive believes on reasonable grounds that— (a) the tenancy to which the bond relates has terminated and no claim is made for the bond within 2 months of the termination; or (b) an application for the refund of the bond has been approved but the bond money has not been collected within 2 months of the approval.
The tenant claims he sent an email to the property manager he was dealing with throughout most of his tenancy and got no response. He forwarded that email to the Bond Centre and told them he had not had any response. The Bond Centre confirmed it had not had any claim from the landlord for the Bond, so it paid the tenant the $1,460.00 bond using its s22D(1)(a) discretion.
The tenant has lost his phone and no longer has access to this email, so could not provide it in evidence. The landlord stated that it had never been received by it.
I find the tenant had the bond refunded to him using lawful means available to him and after seeking advice from Tenancy Services.

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 left much of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but left the oven, microwave, fridge, dishwasher and insides of cupboard unclean and in need of professional cleaning. The microwave had rotting food in it and food splatter all over the microwave door.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish from drawers and left a pile of broken furniture and an old ford car grill/bumper under the bed.
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 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 tenant damaged a bed base after he moved in and this needed to be replaced after his tenancy ended. The tenant claims the bed was unstable and broke as soon as he and his partner first sat on it, that they had raised this with the property manager and the property manager had done nothing to address this. As a result, the tenant claims he broke the bed base down and tried to dispose of it in the unit rubbish area and got chastised by the building manager and told to remove it. The tenant further claims he contacted the property manager and he said that he would collect and dispose of the broken bed base but never did. The tenant claims he should not be held liable for the broken bed for these reasons.
The tenant could not produce any emails he says he sent to the property manager and the property management company have looked through all this property manager’s emails and have been unable to find any such communications from the tenant.
From the entry and exit inspection photographs the bed was in sound condition on the tenant’s entry and broken into small pieces on his exit. I find the damage was caused during the tenancy: The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the lanldord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644830 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644830 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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