What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661335 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 4661335?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661335?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661335?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9523382-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661335 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 4661335?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661335?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661335?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9523382-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 105, 3 Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4661335 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661335 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of couch replacement costs	$500.00	Refund of couch replacement costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The tenant claims that bond money refunded to the landlord of $626.50 to cover cleaning costs and the insurance excess for couch replacement at the end of the tenancy were not agreed by the tenant. The tenant applies for reimbursement of the costs and the filing fee on the application.

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 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. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. Usually, the assessment will involve making a comparison as to how the premises and any chattels provided appeared at the start of the tenancy and at the end. Mattress and couch cleaning
On 4 July 2022, the landlord completed a final inspection of the premises after the tenant had vacated. The landlord sent a list of items requiring attention to the tenant which included chattels provided as part of the tenancy . The landlord claimed that a bed mattress was stained and covered in hair and there was also a stain on one of the squabs of the two-seater couch. The tenant agreed to arrange cleaning and instructed Jae to complete the work.
The landlord was not satisfied that the stains were removed and arranged for their own contractors to clean the items again. They say that their contractor successfully cleaned the mattress, but the couch stain could not be removed. The cleaning costs were $126.50, and they claim reimbursement of this sum from the tenant. They had sent the tenant a list of their preferred cleaning contractors and Jae is not one of them. Had the tenant used one of the preferred suppliers, they say they would not have claimed further re-cleaning costs from the tenant. Notably, the tenant used the landlord’s preferred house cleaners and not being satisfied about the cleaning, the landlord arranged for the cleaners to return to the premises to do further work at no charge to the tenant.
The tenant believes that the mattress stains had been adequately removed by Jae as shown in a photo of the mattress taken shortly after cleaning. However, the landlord pointed to email evidence from Jae on 5 July 2022 recording that “in some instances stains may wick back up post treatment.” The landlord then provided further photos of the mattress after cleaning which show the presence of stains and hair which their cleaners were successful in removing.
I am satisfied on the evidence that further cleaning of the mattress which removed the stains and hair was justified and the tenant should be responsible for those costs.
The couch stains could not be removed by either the tenant’s or the landlord’s cleaner. The tenant says that Jae advised him verbally, because the couch was made from artificial micro-suede fabric, it was impossible to remove the stain.
The tenant gave evidence that he thinks the stain on the couch was minor and may have been a hot water mark. He did not realise the stain was there because of the way the suede pile appears. He does not believe he should be responsible for the stain because the couch fabric is not durable, is difficult to clean and not a prudent choice for a rental property. In summary, the tenant argued that the mark on the couch was fair wear and tear, and he has already gone above and beyond his obligation by contracting Jae to attempt cleaning it.
Neither party produced evidence from a suitable expert source regarding the type of couch fabric and its durability. However, neither the landlord’s nor the tenant’s contractor was able to remove the couch staining.
Given that the landlord’s cleaner was able to remove the mattress staining after Jae’s first attempt, I find it reasonable for them to instruct their contractor to also try and clean the couch a second time after Jae’s failed attempt. Given that the tenant agreed to clean the couch in the first place, it is reasonable for him to pay the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord.
For the above reasons, the cleaning costs of $126.50 are proved.
The next issue is whether the tenant is liable to replace the couch because of the stain mark.

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 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. Replacement couch
The stain on the couch was on one of the seating squabs. The landlord gave evidence that the couch was custom-made for the apartment in 2019. The fabric was no longer in production. Therefore, they had to choose a different fabric and re-upholster the whole couch at a cost of $1,745 plus freight costs of $125. They also say that a less expensive alternative fabric was used. The landlord, therefore, claims the insurance excess of $500.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant did not stain the couch intentionally and it is hard to find that the damage was likely caused carelessly given the tenants evidence that he was not aware of it before the landlord pointed it out after the final inspection. The landlord did not question the tenant’s evidence that the stain may have been a hot water mark. That being the case, it is likely that the damage was caused accidentally and is not careless damage.
Even if I am wrong, and the tenant did cause the damage carelessly, I am not satisfied that replacing the couch is a proportionate and reasonable response. That is because the stain is relatively minor to one squab; this is a rental property and, therefore, the couch is likely to sustain further marks and wear and tear over time. Overall, I do not consider that it is reasonable to replace the couch in this situation.
For the above reasons, the claim for couch replacement is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claims, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661335 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of couch replacement costs	$500.00	Refund of couch replacement costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The tenant claims that bond money refunded to the landlord of $626.50 to cover cleaning costs and the insurance excess for couch replacement at the end of the tenancy were not agreed by the tenant. The tenant applies for reimbursement of the costs and the filing fee on the application.

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 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. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. Usually, the assessment will involve making a comparison as to how the premises and any chattels provided appeared at the start of the tenancy and at the end. Mattress and couch cleaning
On 4 July 2022, the landlord completed a final inspection of the premises after the tenant had vacated. The landlord sent a list of items requiring attention to the tenant which included chattels provided as part of the tenancy . The landlord claimed that a bed mattress was stained and covered in hair and there was also a stain on one of the squabs of the two-seater couch. The tenant agreed to arrange cleaning and instructed Jae to complete the work.
The landlord was not satisfied that the stains were removed and arranged for their own contractors to clean the items again. They say that their contractor successfully cleaned the mattress, but the couch stain could not be removed. The cleaning costs were $126.50, and they claim reimbursement of this sum from the tenant. They had sent the tenant a list of their preferred cleaning contractors and Jae is not one of them. Had the tenant used one of the preferred suppliers, they say they would not have claimed further re-cleaning costs from the tenant. Notably, the tenant used the landlord’s preferred house cleaners and not being satisfied about the cleaning, the landlord arranged for the cleaners to return to the premises to do further work at no charge to the tenant.
The tenant believes that the mattress stains had been adequately removed by Jae as shown in a photo of the mattress taken shortly after cleaning. However, the landlord pointed to email evidence from Jae on 5 July 2022 recording that “in some instances stains may wick back up post treatment.” The landlord then provided further photos of the mattress after cleaning which show the presence of stains and hair which their cleaners were successful in removing.
I am satisfied on the evidence that further cleaning of the mattress which removed the stains and hair was justified and the tenant should be responsible for those costs.
The couch stains could not be removed by either the tenant’s or the landlord’s cleaner. The tenant says that Jae advised him verbally, because the couch was made from artificial micro-suede fabric, it was impossible to remove the stain.
The tenant gave evidence that he thinks the stain on the couch was minor and may have been a hot water mark. He did not realise the stain was there because of the way the suede pile appears. He does not believe he should be responsible for the stain because the couch fabric is not durable, is difficult to clean and not a prudent choice for a rental property. In summary, the tenant argued that the mark on the couch was fair wear and tear, and he has already gone above and beyond his obligation by contracting Jae to attempt cleaning it.
Neither party produced evidence from a suitable expert source regarding the type of couch fabric and its durability. However, neither the landlord’s nor the tenant’s contractor was able to remove the couch staining.
Given that the landlord’s cleaner was able to remove the mattress staining after Jae’s first attempt, I find it reasonable for them to instruct their contractor to also try and clean the couch a second time after Jae’s failed attempt. Given that the tenant agreed to clean the couch in the first place, it is reasonable for him to pay the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord.
For the above reasons, the cleaning costs of $126.50 are proved.
The next issue is whether the tenant is liable to replace the couch because of the stain mark.

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 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. Replacement couch
The stain on the couch was on one of the seating squabs. The landlord gave evidence that the couch was custom-made for the apartment in 2019. The fabric was no longer in production. Therefore, they had to choose a different fabric and re-upholster the whole couch at a cost of $1,745 plus freight costs of $125. They also say that a less expensive alternative fabric was used. The landlord, therefore, claims the insurance excess of $500.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant did not stain the couch intentionally and it is hard to find that the damage was likely caused carelessly given the tenants evidence that he was not aware of it before the landlord pointed it out after the final inspection. The landlord did not question the tenant’s evidence that the stain may have been a hot water mark. That being the case, it is likely that the damage was caused accidentally and is not careless damage.
Even if I am wrong, and the tenant did cause the damage carelessly, I am not satisfied that replacing the couch is a proportionate and reasonable response. That is because the stain is relatively minor to one squab; this is a rental property and, therefore, the couch is likely to sustain further marks and wear and tear over time. Overall, I do not consider that it is reasonable to replace the couch in this situation.
For the above reasons, the claim for couch replacement is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claims, he is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661335 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 105, 3 Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661335 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 105, 3 Roxburgh Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington

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