What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4658791 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $950.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4658791?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Interior Repaint: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658791?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9657998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4658791 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $950.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4658791?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Interior Repaint: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658791?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9657998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17A Valhalla Drive, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4658791 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658791 — net $950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Interior repaint	$750.00	Interior repaint
Joinery clean	$180.00	Joinery clean
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$950.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.44

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.

The tenant had filed a cross application which was withdrawn before the hearing.

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 landlord claims that the tenant breached this obligation because soot from candle smoke had accumulated on the carpet and on aluminium window joinery, requiring that they be commercially cleaned.

On vacating the premises, the tenant had the premises commercially cleaned. An invoice was provided in evidence showing that she paid $380.99 for an “intense Real Estate Standard check” of the premises. She believes that the cleaning included cleaning of the carpets but was not there when the cleaning was done.

Photographs provided by the landlord from the final inspection show clearly stained window joinery that required further cleaning. I am satisfied that in that respect the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the window joinery cleaned. That cost is proved by the invoice provided by the landlords.

Ass regards the carpet, the landlords say that the carpet appeared clean but the new tenant complained about the carpets leaving marks on her clothing. They say that on inspection the carpets were found to be dirty from what the landlords assume was an accumulation of soot from candle smoke. The tenant says she did not experience that while living there.

No supporting evidence was provided by the landlord to prove e breach by the tenant, in the form of statements from the carpet cleaning company or through photographs. I do not find it proved that the tenant did not leave the carpets reasonably clean.

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.

The landlords say that from the manufacture and burning of candles and incense during the tenancy, the tenant damaged the walls through soot staining of the walls and surfaces.

The landlords have obtained a quote for repainting the interior of the premises, which was freshly painted when the tenancy began. They have not undertaken the work.

A new tenancy has begun at the same rent as was paid by this tenant. No undertaking or agreement is in place with the new tenant that the walls will be repainted. The landlords do not know when the repainting will be done but say it will necessarily be earlier than it would have needed to be done without that damage.

For her part, the tenant says that when the tenancy began she was making candles in the premises but stopped doing that after a few months when asked to do so by the landlords. She did continue burning candles and incense in the premises for a few months after that but again stopped when asked by the landlords.

The tenant says she noticed some blackening of the walls around electrical devices and wonders whether that may have caused or contributed to the discoloration of the walls.

The evidence satisfies me on balance that damage to the walls by discolouration occurred during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided evidence to prove it is from a cause for which she is not responsible.

The landlord is entitled to be compensation for the resulting loss. However, no loss has yet been incurred and there is no certainty of when it will be. Really, the position is that the tenant’s actions have not caused the need for repainting of the premises, which is a cost the landlords would have bear at some point anyway. I am persuaded though that the repainting will need to be done somewhat sooner than it might have otherwise.

I make a modest award of compensation to recognise the cost to the landlord of having to bring that necessary work forward.

Because [The applicant/s] have succeeded with some claims I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658791 — net $950.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Interior repaint	$750.00	Interior repaint
Joinery clean	$180.00	Joinery clean
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$950.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.44

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $950.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the 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.
The tenant had filed a cross application which was withdrawn before the hearing.

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 landlord claims that the tenant breached this obligation because soot from candle smoke had accumulated on the carpet and on aluminium window joinery, requiring that they be commercially cleaned.
On vacating the premises, the tenant had the premises commercially cleaned. An invoice was provided in evidence showing that she paid $380.99 for an “intense Real Estate Standard check” of the premises. She believes that the cleaning included cleaning of the carpets but was not there when the cleaning was done.
Photographs provided by the landlord from the final inspection show clearly stained window joinery that required further cleaning. I am satisfied that in that respect the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the window joinery cleaned. That cost is proved by the invoice provided by the landlords.
Ass regards the carpet, the landlords say that the carpet appeared clean but the new tenant complained about the carpets leaving marks on her clothing. They say that on inspection the carpets were found to be dirty from what the landlords assume was an accumulation of soot from candle smoke. The tenant says she did not experience that while living there.
No supporting evidence was provided by the landlord to prove e breach by the tenant, in the form of statements from the carpet cleaning company or through photographs. I do not find it proved that the tenant did not leave the carpets reasonably clean.

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.
The landlords say that from the manufacture and burning of candles and incense during the tenancy, the tenant damaged the walls through soot staining of the walls and surfaces.
The landlords have obtained a quote for repainting the interior of the premises, which was freshly painted when the tenancy began. They have not undertaken the work.
A new tenancy has begun at the same rent as was paid by this tenant. No undertaking or agreement is in place with the new tenant that the walls will be repainted. The landlords do not know when the repainting will be done but say it will necessarily be earlier than it would have needed to be done without that damage.
For her part, the tenant says that when the tenancy began she was making candles in the premises but stopped doing that after a few months when asked to do so by the landlords. She did continue burning candles and incense in the premises for a few months after that but again stopped when asked by the landlords.
The tenant says she noticed some blackening of the walls around electrical devices and wonders whether that may have caused or contributed to the discoloration of the walls.
The evidence satisfies me on balance that damage to the walls by discolouration occurred during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided evidence to prove it is from a cause for which she is not responsible.
The landlord is entitled to be compensation for the resulting loss. However, no loss has yet been incurred and there is no certainty of when it will be. Really, the position is that the tenant’s actions have not caused the need for repainting of the premises, which is a cost the landlords would have bear at some point anyway. I am persuaded though that the repainting will need to be done somewhat sooner than it might have otherwise.
I make a modest award of compensation to recognise the cost to the landlord of having to bring that necessary work forward.
Because [The applicant/s] have succeeded with some claims I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658791 — Cleanliness at 17A Valhalla Drive, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658791 — Cleanliness at 17A Valhalla Drive, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

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