What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656414 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 4656414?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,202.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Front Door: $825.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656414?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9447866-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656414 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 4656414?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,202.86 awarded to landlord; Replace Front Door: $825.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656414?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9447866-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Pasteur Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656414 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656414 — net $6,218.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,202.86	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Oven/stove cleaning	$450.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Repairs: replace front door	$825.16	Repairs: replace front door
Net award	$6,218.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,218.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lynette Maxwell must pay [The landlord/s] $6,218.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] both attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenant, Ms Maxwell, did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing, the landlord said the tenant left the property on 11 September 2023, after providing 28 days’ notice. As such, the landlord withdrew their claim for termination and possession.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 11 September 2023, the end of the tenancy, which is $6,202.86.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs as part of an exit inspection report dated 12 September 2023 of the condition of the property at the end of the property. They pointed to various household items, such as sheets, towels, shaving materials and other items left by the tenant around the property. The landlord said there was food to be wiped from surfaces in the kitchen, that the oven and toilet were left filthy. [The landlord’s representative/s] said the property was left such that the tenant had made no effort to clean, vacuum or dust before leaving the property.
The landlord provided a quote from a cleaning company who visited the property after the tenant left, to assess cleaning requirements. The estimation dated 14 September 2023 quotes for cleaning to wipe down interior windows, windowsills, skirting boards, walls, ceilings, to vacuum, clean kitchen cupboards, the oven, toilet and bathroom, clean light fittings and switches and clean vinyl surfaces. The landlord wishes to engage this cleaner to clean the premises post-tenancy.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. 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 they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The cleaning company quote estimated the work would require 2 cleaners @ $70.00/hour ($35.00/hour each cleaner) for 10 hours of cleaning, plus GST for a total estimate of $805.00. Given the photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy and the requirement that the property is left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition to the standard of a tenant, I find that a more reasonable cost for cleaning in the circumstances is $450.00 GST inclusive. Therefore, I award the landlord $450.00 to clean the property, which I find to be a reasonable cost based on the evidence.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Exterior front door a. The landlord said that the tenant’s partner severely damaged the exterior front door of the property during the tenancy in July 2022. The landlord said the tenant acknowledged responsibility for the damage but did not make any payments towards the cost of replacing the front door. The landlord said the whole front door, door frame and door locks were damaged. b. From the evidence provided I find this damage to the front door to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of repair to the front door was $825.16, which includes the materials and labour. I find this to be a reasonable cost to replace the front door. c. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will ned to be replaced in time. Where any item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. d. In relation to the front door, I find that the exterior front door would be expected to last a lifetime and so does not need to be depreciated. e. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. f. Therefore, I award the landlord $826.16 to replace the front exterior door. Holes in the walls g. The landlord said the tenant caused damage to the property during the tenancy by making holes in the walls all through the property. The landlord provided photographs of these holes in the wall, some of which had been plastered over, but not to a satisfactory standard, according to the landlord. There were more than 11-12 of these holes, of various sizes, throughout most rooms in the house. There were also patch ups on door frames in a few rooms. h. The landlord provided two quotes from a painter/plasterer. One quote was for $8,280.00 to plaster and repaint all the walls, doors and door frames throughout the property. The other quote for $1,380.00 was to specifically repair, plaster, sand and spot prime the holes that the landlord said the tenant caused at the property. i. However, the landlord also provided a copy of the entry inspection report dated 14 November 2019, which was completed the day before the tenant moved in. This report stated, “there are several patched up holes in the walls that need to be plastered and painted.” This report discusses many issues at the property including the bathroom ceiling being mouldy with paint cracking, skirting boards that were stained and cracked, unpainted windowsills with exposed wood and many other issues. The report concludes with its writer’s opinion that the house was not ready to be tenanted as there was so much unfinished work. j. The landlord said there had been an arrangement between the tenant and the owner about some painting and other work to be done by the tenant when she moved in but was not aware of the details or payment for this. k. The landlord, as property manager, said there had been new holes in the walls during each of her inspections. However, none of these inspection reports throughout the tenancy were provided to note these differences. l. Given the entry inspection report of 14 November 2019 and its comments about several patched-up holes in the walls that need to be plastered and painted, even before the tenancy began, and what I find is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord about the tenant causing these holes in the walls during the tenancy, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the cost of plastering or painting the holes in the walls.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656414 — net $6,218.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$6,202.86	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Oven/stove cleaning	$450.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Repairs: replace front door	$825.16	Repairs: replace front door
Net award	$6,218.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,218.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lynette Maxwell must pay [The landlord/s] $6,218.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] both attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenant, Ms Maxwell, did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing, the landlord said the tenant left the property on 11 September 2023, after providing 28 days’ notice. As such, the landlord withdrew their claim for termination and possession.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 11 September 2023, the end of the tenancy, which is $6,202.86.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs as part of an exit inspection report dated 12 September 2023 of the condition of the property at the end of the property. They pointed to various household items, such as sheets, towels, shaving materials and other items left by the tenant around the property. The landlord said there was food to be wiped from surfaces in the kitchen, that the oven and toilet were left filthy. [The landlord’s representative/s] said the property was left such that the tenant had made no effort to clean, vacuum or dust before leaving the property.
The landlord provided a quote from a cleaning company who visited the property after the tenant left, to assess cleaning requirements. The estimation dated 14 September 2023 quotes for cleaning to wipe down interior windows, windowsills, skirting boards, walls, ceilings, to vacuum, clean kitchen cupboards, the oven, toilet and bathroom, clean light fittings and switches and clean vinyl surfaces. The landlord wishes to engage this cleaner to clean the premises post-tenancy.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. 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 they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The cleaning company quote estimated the work would require 2 cleaners @ $70.00/hour ($35.00/hour each cleaner) for 10 hours of cleaning, plus GST for a total estimate of $805.00. Given the photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy and the requirement that the property is left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition to the standard of a tenant, I find that a more reasonable cost for cleaning in the circumstances is $450.00 GST inclusive. Therefore, I award the landlord $450.00 to clean the property, which I find to be a reasonable cost based on the evidence.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Exterior front door a. The landlord said that the tenant’s partner severely damaged the exterior front door of the property during the tenancy in July 2022. The landlord said the tenant acknowledged responsibility for the damage but did not make any payments towards the cost of replacing the front door. The landlord said the whole front door, door frame and door locks were damaged. b. From the evidence provided I find this damage to the front door to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of repair to the front door was $825.16, which includes the materials and labour. I find this to be a reasonable cost to replace the front door. c. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will ned to be replaced in time. Where any item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. d. In relation to the front door, I find that the exterior front door would be expected to last a lifetime and so does not need to be depreciated. e. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. f. Therefore, I award the landlord $826.16 to replace the front exterior door. Holes in the walls g. The landlord said the tenant caused damage to the property during the tenancy by making holes in the walls all through the property. The landlord provided photographs of these holes in the wall, some of which had been plastered over, but not to a satisfactory standard, according to the landlord. There were more than 11-12 of these holes, of various sizes, throughout most rooms in the house. There were also patch ups on door frames in a few rooms. h. The landlord provided two quotes from a painter/plasterer. One quote was for $8,280.00 to plaster and repaint all the walls, doors and door frames throughout the property. The other quote for $1,380.00 was to specifically repair, plaster, sand and spot prime the holes that the landlord said the tenant caused at the property. i. However, the landlord also provided a copy of the entry inspection report dated 14 November 2019, which was completed the day before the tenant moved in. This report stated, “there are several patched up holes in the walls that need to be plastered and painted.” This report discusses many issues at the property including the bathroom ceiling being mouldy with paint cracking, skirting boards that were stained and cracked, unpainted windowsills with exposed wood and many other issues. The report concludes with its writer’s opinion that the house was not ready to be tenanted as there was so much unfinished work. j. The landlord said there had been an arrangement between the tenant and the owner about some painting and other work to be done by the tenant when she moved in but was not aware of the details or payment for this. k. The landlord, as property manager, said there had been new holes in the walls during each of her inspections. However, none of these inspection reports throughout the tenancy were provided to note these differences. l. Given the entry inspection report of 14 November 2019 and its comments about several patched-up holes in the walls that need to be plastered and painted, even before the tenancy began, and what I find is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord about the tenant causing these holes in the walls during the tenancy, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the cost of plastering or painting the holes in the walls.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656414 — Rent arrears at 4 Pasteur Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656414 — Rent arrears at 4 Pasteur Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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