What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648589 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $75.00

How much money was awarded in case 4648589?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648589?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9868257-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648589 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $75.00

How much money was awarded in case 4648589?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648589?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9868257-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648589 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648589 — net $75.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$75.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$75.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $75.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 21 December 2023. The first hearing on 18 September 2023 was adjourned because the landlord was sending through further documents, including inspection reports.
Prior to the second telephone hearing, the Tribunal had received additional documents from the landlord, but no inspection reports. The landlord emailed inspection reports to the Tribunal during the hearing, dated 9 December 2022 and 24 February 2023. The tenant received them and was able to comment on the reports at the hearing.
The Tribunal gave the landlord further time to provide the inspection reports to the Tribunal, with a final extension given until Wednesday 17 January 2024. The inspection reports have not been received. Background
On 6 August 2023 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for painting and carpet cleaning costs and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy ended on 26 November 2022. There were 6 departing tenants and about the same number of incoming tenants for the new tenancy. I understand the bond was refunded to the tenants.
There are no emails between the parties around the time when the tenancy ended. On 28 June 2023 the landlord emailed the tenants, referring to carpet stains and damage to the walls due to Blu Tack pulling off the paint. The landlord referred to a discussion in which it had been agreed that the tenants would pay for any damage at the end of the new tenancy that was there when the new tenants moved in.
The tenants replied on 10 July 2023. The tenants said it was agreed they only had to address the lounge carpet, and there was no mention of any other cleaning required. The tenants indicated they were happy to cover the cost of fixing the lounge but noted that two other groups had lived in the property since them and so it was “unreasonable to associate all damage [to us] under our lease”.

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.
The tenants arranged for the carpet to be cleaned on 15 November 2023. The tenant told me the invoiced cost of $170.00 was just for the lounge. The landlord said their invoice for $435.54 was also for the lounge but the invoice refers to a steam clean of the hall, lounge, stairs and 4 bedrooms.
According to the tenants, the inspection reports show staining in the lounge and the tenants in correspondence accepted that they had not been able to remove everything, i.e., all the staining. I award $75.00 for the cost of further cleaning to remove a stain in the lounge carpet, after pro-rating the invoice of $435.54 to arrive at an average cost of cleaning for each room (treating the hall and stairs as a single room for this purpose).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $512.90 for the cost of fixing paint defects on the walls, tenant damage from Blu Tack and scuffing from furniture. 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.
The landlord’s undated photographs show areas of damage to the walls that are more than fair wear and tear. The difficulty is establishing whether the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenants said the December 2022 inspection report did not show any marks on the walls, while the February 2023 report referred to marks. Given the date of the inspections, both reports reflect the condition of the property after the end of the tenancy and during the subsequent tenancy.
While some of the damage may have been caused during the tenancy, in my view it is not possible to establish, even on a broad-brush approach, the extent of the damage at the end of the tenancy. In my view, the landlord has not proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy or provided sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to assess the proportion of the damage likely caused during the tenancy. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has obtained an order for payment of compensation. However, I do have some concern about the late provision of evidence by the landlord at two hearings. Key evidence has apparently not been filed. This interferes with the Tribunal’s ability to deal with cases fairly and expeditiously. I decline to exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression. In my view, the tenants have been “wholly or substantially” successful in defending the application. While liable for further carpet cleaning, in terms of the amounts claimed, the tenants were largely successful. I grant name suppression to the tenants and decline to grant name suppression to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648589 — net $75.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$75.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$75.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $75.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 21 December 2023. The first hearing on 18 September 2023 was adjourned because the landlord was sending through further documents, including inspection reports.
Prior to the second telephone hearing, the Tribunal had received additional documents from the landlord, but no inspection reports. The landlord emailed inspection reports to the Tribunal during the hearing, dated 9 December 2022 and 24 February 2023. The tenant received them and was able to comment on the reports at the hearing.
The Tribunal gave the landlord further time to provide the inspection reports to the Tribunal, with a final extension given until Wednesday 17 January 2024. The inspection reports have not been received. Background
On 6 August 2023 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for painting and carpet cleaning costs and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy ended on 26 November 2022. There were 6 departing tenants and about the same number of incoming tenants for the new tenancy. I understand the bond was refunded to the tenants.
There are no emails between the parties around the time when the tenancy ended. On 28 June 2023 the landlord emailed the tenants, referring to carpet stains and damage to the walls due to Blu Tack pulling off the paint. The landlord referred to a discussion in which it had been agreed that the tenants would pay for any damage at the end of the new tenancy that was there when the new tenants moved in.
The tenants replied on 10 July 2023. The tenants said it was agreed they only had to address the lounge carpet, and there was no mention of any other cleaning required. The tenants indicated they were happy to cover the cost of fixing the lounge but noted that two other groups had lived in the property since them and so it was “unreasonable to associate all damage [to us] under our lease”.

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.
The tenants arranged for the carpet to be cleaned on 15 November 2023. The tenant told me the invoiced cost of $170.00 was just for the lounge. The landlord said their invoice for $435.54 was also for the lounge but the invoice refers to a steam clean of the hall, lounge, stairs and 4 bedrooms.
According to the tenants, the inspection reports show staining in the lounge and the tenants in correspondence accepted that they had not been able to remove everything, i.e., all the staining. I award $75.00 for the cost of further cleaning to remove a stain in the lounge carpet, after pro-rating the invoice of $435.54 to arrive at an average cost of cleaning for each room (treating the hall and stairs as a single room for this purpose).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $512.90 for the cost of fixing paint defects on the walls, tenant damage from Blu Tack and scuffing from furniture. 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.
The landlord’s undated photographs show areas of damage to the walls that are more than fair wear and tear. The difficulty is establishing whether the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenants said the December 2022 inspection report did not show any marks on the walls, while the February 2023 report referred to marks. Given the date of the inspections, both reports reflect the condition of the property after the end of the tenancy and during the subsequent tenancy.
While some of the damage may have been caused during the tenancy, in my view it is not possible to establish, even on a broad-brush approach, the extent of the damage at the end of the tenancy. In my view, the landlord has not proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy or provided sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to assess the proportion of the damage likely caused during the tenancy. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has obtained an order for payment of compensation. However, I do have some concern about the late provision of evidence by the landlord at two hearings. Key evidence has apparently not been filed. This interferes with the Tribunal’s ability to deal with cases fairly and expeditiously. I decline to exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression. In my view, the tenants have been “wholly or substantially” successful in defending the application. While liable for further carpet cleaning, in terms of the amounts claimed, the tenants were largely successful. I grant name suppression to the tenants and decline to grant name suppression to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648589 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648589 — 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

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

Key findings

Frequently asked questions