What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645753 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,071.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4645753?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord; BBQ Stains: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Patching Carpets: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Radiators: $161.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9580247-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645753 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,071.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4645753?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord; BBQ Stains: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Patching Carpets: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Radiators: $161.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9580247-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645753 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645753 — net $1,071.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: painting and plastering damaged walls & doors	$2,000.00	Repairs: painting and plastering damaged walls & doors
Repairs: patching carpets	$950.00	Repairs: patching carpets
Repairs: blinds	$550.00	Repairs: blinds
Repairs: radiators	$161.00	Repairs: radiators
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: BBQ stains	$150.00	Repairs: BBQ stains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,071.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,071.44

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] accepts a number of the claims but questions the costs of some and liability of others.

I discuss each claim separately below and in doing so take into account that applicants are required to establish their case to the civil evidential standard of the “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. Claims regarding damage are slightly different and I discuss that further below.

In this case, there is some evidence that is either contradictory or calls for the Tribunal to draw inferences. In that case the standard which the Tribunal adopts is the interpretation which a reasonable person would put on the evidence 1 . In line with established principles, this decision records only those facts which the Tribunal regards as relevant to its decision however all evidence that was provided has been taken into account.

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 (RTA).

[The landlord’s representative] claims $400 for cleaning being the amount she was charged by her cleaner who took two days to clean the property. She says she also undertook some additional cleaning herself.

[The tenant/s] accepts that they did not get time to clean as they would have liked. They have four young children and no whanau support which meant they could not meet their obligations as they had wanted to.

Whilst [The tenant/s] accepts liability for cleaning, I must still assess whether the amount claimed is reasonable. The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation 1 Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2014] NZSC 147 by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.

I am satisfied that it is proven that the property was provided at the commencement of the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy way but was not returned in that way. I also find that [The landlord’s representative] mitigated the loss by undertaking some of it herself and the amount claimed is reasonable for two days work.

In saying that, it is not reasonable to expect tenants to clean deeply inside window and door tracks, inside washing machines or ceilings as the ‘reasonable standard’ takes into account fair wear and tear. Further, a tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

Having assessed the photographs provided, I find that an award of $350 compensation for cleaning is justified in the circumstances. I also consider the $90 claimed for the garden work justified.

Finally, $299 is claimed to clean oil and burn stains from the concrete slabs outside where the tenants had their bbq. [The tenant/s] accepts these marks and this claim. [The landlord’s representative] had tried to clean them herself but when they would not budge, she has had to seek professional cleaners. They were sufficiently extensive to exceed fair wear and tear however I note that the ingoing inspection report does note “multiple rust stains and marks on the exterior bricks”. Accordingly, the evidence has not established that the amount claimed solely relates to marks caused during this tenancy. Accordingly, I have reduced the amount claimed to a proportionate amount based on the evidence provided.

The amounts ordered are proven and considered reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

As discussed above, the burden of proof with respect to damage is slightly different. 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 landlord’s excess here was $1,000 and their insurance company did not cover any of the work as the excess would apply to each individual piece of damage.

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. The weekly rent here was $800.

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. Wall damages

At the end of the tenancy there were numerous dents and scratches in the majority of walls of the property. [The tenant/s] accepts these and explains that they have four young children who caused a lot of the damage. Some wall damages occurred as a result of doorstops being removed and as such the door handles and doors banging into the walls. [The tenant/s] says they came off very easily, an issue they raised at their first inspection.

[The landlord’s representative] agrees they were told about the door stops coming off but says [The tenant/s] advised her then that the children pulled them off. During the tenancy some were replaced which [The tenant/s] paid for, but it happened again.

Having assessed the photographs I am satisfied that some of the damage was caused intentionally. The plastic seal on the glass door was applied intentionally, some doorstops had been fully removed which are intentional acts and some gouges were significant enough to have required substantial force to achieve.

Other damage I find was caused carelessly given the nature and extent of it. The care expected is that which could be reasonably anticipated by the tenant exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. 2 The fact that there was so much damage indicates that more care should have been taken in this situation.

However, I also consider that some of the damage was caused by fair wear and tear. In assessing that I must take into account the length of the tenancy (here it was relatively short at 14 months) but also the number of tenants. The tenancy agreement has contracted for four young children as well as the tenants occupying the home. [The landlord’s representative] says they never intended for this many people to live there and in fact there was another occupant as well. Be that as it may, the tenants were contractually allowed to have their four children reside with them.

It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling as contracted, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes or marks. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives, which naturally is relative to the number of occupants.

The legal principal of volenti non fit injuria is relevant and it essentially states that a person cannot complain of injury that they have consented to. This translates in this situation to a landlord having contracted for a family with four young children to reasonably expect some further wear and tear than would otherwise be expected with only two tenants or less children.

I also note that in the ingoing inspection report, doorstops were noted several times as loose and there we already some scuff marks and paint chips. I do note that [The landlord’s representative] had been very through in terms of accounting for the marks and only claiming the ones she noted as occurring during the tenancy.

Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for compensation to replace the door stops that have been removed, remove the plastic sheeting on the glass door and repair the wall and door damage that was intentionally and carelessly caused. Taking a reasonable approach to the amount claimed, I assess the tenants as liable for $2000 of that damage. Carpets

It is not disputed that the carpets were stained at the end of the tenancy [The tenant/s] says they had a partial professional carpet clean during the tenancy and then a full one at the end but accepts that some of the stains could not be fully lifted. 2 Mercier v Smith Dunedin TT 228/93, 14 December 1993 (upheld in Smith v Mercier DC Dunedin TT 228/93, 10 May 1994

[The landlord’s representative] claims $1,098.26 for patch repairing the carpet. She says they have not repaired all stains as they ran out of spare carpet and still live with 24 stains. [The tenant/s] accepts responsibility for this damage although questions the cost.

I accept that [The landlord’s representative] has mitigated the loss here by accepting some stains and having patches repaired with extra carpet rather than replacing the carpet which would have been considerably more expensive. The stains were extensive and throughout the property and rendered the carpets in a fair worse condition than they were at the commencement of the tenancy.

Some of the stains I attribute to fair wear and tear but the majority to careless damage. I appreciate that [The tenant/s] did try to remove the stains which was a prudent step on her behalf, however I do assess her liability for the majority of those remaining. Accordingly, I find that compensation of $950 reasonable in the circumstances. Blinds

[The landlord’s representative] has claimed $673 for replacing 32 missing blind slats and 5 missing blind wands. [The tenant/s] accepts that some were pulled off by her children but also considers that they were of basic quality and so some fell off in usual use.

[The landlord’s representative] says she was not told about issues with the blinds during the tenancy and considers that the tenants must have been extremely rough with them as they were of good quality and were extensively damaged at the end of the tenancy.

Blinds have an expected lifespan in New Zealand residential tenancies, according to current depreciation guidelines, of 8 years. These were coming close to that at the end of the tenancy having been installed in 2017. Accordingly, some wear and tear of them at this stage in their lifespan could be expected. In saying that I do find it likely that less care was taken with them than should have been given the extent of the damage.

I consider it reasonable, when looking at the evidence holistically, that the tenants should be responsible for $550 of the repair cost. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Both parties have sought suppression. The landlord was substantially successful, therefore pursuant to s95A of the RTA is entitled to suppression orders. [The tenant/s] did consent to a number of orders and has been successful to an extent in defending some of the claims. Accordingly, I also approve her claim for suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645753 — net $1,071.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: painting and plastering damaged walls & doors	$2,000.00	Repairs: painting and plastering damaged walls & doors
Repairs: patching carpets	$950.00	Repairs: patching carpets
Repairs: blinds	$550.00	Repairs: blinds
Repairs: radiators	$161.00	Repairs: radiators
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: BBQ stains	$150.00	Repairs: BBQ stains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,071.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,071.44

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Having assessed the photographs provided, I find that an award of $350 compensation for cleaning is justified in the circumstances. I also consider the $90 claimed for the garden work justified.

The amounts ordered are proven and considered reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I consider it reasonable, when looking at the evidence holistically, that the tenants should be responsible for $550 of the repair cost. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645753 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645753 — Property damage

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