How much money was awarded in case 4652149?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $328.57 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $214.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $682.12 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652149?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9799280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4652149?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $328.57 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $214.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $682.12 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652149?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9799280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652149 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652149 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652149 — net $503.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: bin hire	$214.00		Rubbish removal: bin hire
Lawns and garden work	$100.00		Lawns and garden work
Carpet cleaning	$180.00		Carpet cleaning
Compensation for carpet damage	$1,000.00		Compensation for carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$328.57	Rent credit
Water rates credit		$682.12	Water rates credit
Total award	$1,514.44	$1,010.69
Net award	$503.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.75

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: [The tenant/s]:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord/s representative] appeared for the landlord.

This tenancy began on 31 August 2018. The tenant states that they moved out at the end of June 2023 after giving more than 30 days notice to end the tenancy. The tenant accepts that the keys were not returned.

The landlord’s records indicate that 18 July 2023 was regarded as the date the tenancy ended. This is noted in the tenant ledger. The tenant has not provided evidence to show an earlier date for the ending of the tenancy. Therefore, 18 July 2023 is accepted as the date that this tenancy ended.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent and water rates

The parties accept that the tenant was in credit for both rent and water charges at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is that there were difficulties contacting the tenant and the keys were not returned. The new tenants moved into the premises on 31 August 2023.

The landlord provided rent records and the tenant ledger relating to water charges. The amount of overpaid rent is not disputed and is noted as a credit above.

At the hearing, the landlord gave varying accounts of the final amount that the tenant had overpaid for water rates. The tenant has not provided any contrary evidence. On the basis that the landlord’s records are complete, and in reliance on the written statement provided at the hearing, I find that the tenant has a credit amount of $682.12 for water charges. While the landlord has suggested a lower amount of $484.12, this amount was calculated after deduction of $198.00 for cleaning charges. These charges are separate from the water account. Therefore, the tenant is to be credited $682.12 for overpaid water charges.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).

The landlord claims cleaning and rubbish removal costs. The landlord has produced an inspection report, which was completed following an inspection on 24 July 2023, after the tenancy ended. This report contained photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Also produced was an inspection report with photographs of the premises prior to the tenancy commencing.

The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment “to be made after consideration of all the evidence.” 2

Therefore, “reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 3 . This does not equate to being commercially clean 4 , spotless 5 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8

In this case the tenant has produced contrary evidence, being invoices, showing that the premises were professionally cleaned on 15 July 2023. There are three invoices. One shows that a “move out clean” was completed on 15 July 2023 and the tenant was invoiced $532.17. The second shows the tenants arranged for the interior windows to be cleaned and were invoiced $400.80. The third invoice shows the carpet was cleaned and shampooed, and the tenants were charged $291.05.

Overall, I find that the landlord has not shown that the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also not produced any invoice for the cleaning costs claimed, stating that the owner had completed the cleaning. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.

However, the tenant accepts that he did not remove all his belongings at the end of the tenancy, and a washing machine, dryer and television were left behind. The cost of disposal of these items is unclear from the landlord’s evidence. I accept that the landlord is to be compensated for the bin hire, for which the invoice has been provided. This is awarded above. 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens at [19]. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 6 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 7 Richards v Scally (above) 8 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523.

The landlord also arranged for some further gardening at the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s evidence is that the lawns were regularly mowed via [mowing company]. The landlord’s photographic evidence shows that some additional gardening was required, although the full amount of $345.00 claimed by the landlord is not accepted. The landlord is entitled to $100.00 for the gardening costs, which is awarded above.

The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet and garage. To be successful, 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 of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.

The landlord is insured for tenant damage and according to the documents submitted with the application, the insurance excess is $650.00. The rent for this premises is $660.00 per week.

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) of the 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. Carpet damage

The tenant accepts that the carpet was stained, and the stains could not be removed with professional cleaning, which both the tenant and landlord organised. It is reasonable for the landlord to arrange for its own professional cleaning of the carpet, and the amount claimed for carpet cleaning is awarded above.

The landlord has provided a quote for replacement of the carpet ($4,427.50), and states that the carpet has not yet been replaced. It is accepted that there were stains remaining, although the extent of the staining after professional cleaning is unclear. This quote appears to be for replacement of all carpet within the premises, rather than the affected rooms, which the landlord’s oral evidence indicates was mostly in the bedrooms. The landlord has stated that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy.

Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that, due to the nature of the stains, and the resulting damage to the carpet, the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord.

When determining the quantum of the landlord’s compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan must be factored in.

In this case the carpet was 5 years old at the end of the tenancy, and, from the landlord’s oral evidence, the damage was mostly to the bedrooms. The quotation for replacement of the carpet appears to be for re-carpeting the entire house. Taking all these factors into account, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $1,000.00. Garage

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the garage. However, I find this claim has not been established, to the required standard. While noting the photograph provided by the landlord, the tenant has explained that the garage window was already in that condition. Furthermore, the landlord has not produced an invoice for the repair costs. I also note that written comments included in the landlord’s evidence (produced at the hearing) suggests the claimed damage was more likely a maintenance issue, or the result of fair wear and tear.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

Because the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. Being the successful party, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. While noting that the tenant is the unsuccessful party, having had regard to the public interest, I find that the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in being identified. Therefore, name suppression is also granted for the tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652149 — net $503.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: bin hire	$214.00		Rubbish removal: bin hire
Lawns and garden work	$100.00		Lawns and garden work
Carpet cleaning	$180.00		Carpet cleaning
Compensation for carpet damage	$1,000.00		Compensation for carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$328.57	Rent credit
Water rates credit		$682.12	Water rates credit
Total award	$1,514.44	$1,010.69
Net award	$503.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.75