What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4663769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,476.87 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4663769?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $406.43 awarded to landlord; To Wall In Hallway: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4663769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4663769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9590103-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4663769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,476.87 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4663769?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $406.43 awarded to landlord; To Wall In Hallway: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4663769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4663769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9590103-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4663769 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4663769 — net $1,476.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 July 2023	$406.43	Rent arrears to 18 July 2023
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Garden work	$300.00	Garden work
Repairs: to wall in hallway	$400.00	Repairs: to wall in hallway
Rubbish removal: bed/ mattress and bike	$100.00	Rubbish removal: bed/ mattress and bike
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,476.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,476.87

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4663769 — net $1,476.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 July 2023	$406.43	Rent arrears to 18 July 2023
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Garden work	$300.00	Garden work
Repairs: to wall in hallway	$400.00	Repairs: to wall in hallway
Rubbish removal: bed/ mattress and bike	$100.00	Rubbish removal: bed/ mattress and bike
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,476.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,476.87

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,476.87 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,476.87 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $323.13 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] appeared for the landlord. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenant.
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 18 July 2023. On 22 August 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed is awarded.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to leave the inside of the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to leave the gardens reasonably tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord is claiming $707.25 for cleaning, $931.50 for rubbish removal, and $682.68 for ground maintenance.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) - (v) of the Act
It appears that over the course of the tenancy, there have been around six property managers. [The property manager/s] has never been a property manager for the tenancy, did not complete the end of tenancy inspection, and is essentially presenting the landlord’s case. On the other hand, [The tenant/s] is a tenant and can give direct evidence.
The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report and an end of tenancy inspection report, both of which contain photographs.
The property was built in the 1980’s, retains many of its original features, and has wear and tear commensurate with its age. The property has three bedrooms, a loft area, toilet, bathroom, lounge, dining room, kitchen, and a double garage, which contains the laundry.
[The property manager/s] submits that the pre and post tenancy photographs show that the property has not been left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant disagrees and submits that the property has been left reasonably clean and tidy.
Whether a tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition will involve an objective assessment. It is what the reasonable by stander looking through the window of the property, in this case the Tribunal, would consider reasonably clean and tidy.
I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, I also cannot accept that the full amount claimed by the landlord for cleaning is justified. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave certain areas reasonably clean and tidy, such as the bathroom, the hand basin in the toilet, some power points and light fittings, the fireplace hearth, cobwebs on walls, and the backs of most of the curtains, which are considerably more soiled than they were at the commencement of the tenancy. It is my assessment that compensation for cleaning of $250.00 is reasonable.
There are no photographs of underneath the house at the commencement of the tenancy. [The property manager/s] has produced photographs showing a considerable amount of rubbish under the house, which includes a double bed and base, child’s push bike and a swimming pool. [The property manager/s] states that three trailer loads were taken to the dump. The claim includes labour and disposal costs.
The tenant denies responsibility for any of the items and states that they were present at the commencement of the tenancy. There is no record of the tenant raising this issue with the landlord. If the landlord provided the property in this condition, they were clearly in breach of their obligations. The tenant states that around 2020, the property manager at the time arranged for a healthy homes assessment, which identified the need for a ground barrier, which could only be installed if the rubbish was removed. [The property manager/s] has produced photographs taken during a routine inspection which he states show the bed concerned in one of the rooms, and the bike concerned in the garage. The tenant states there is insufficient evidence to identify the items as belonging to the tenant.
After hearing from the parties and considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the bed and the pushbike more likely than not belong to the tenant. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied concerning the other items. I award the landlord $100.00 to remove the bed and pushbike.
Apart from the need for some “weed eating”, the tenant disputes the claim for garden and lawn maintenance, stating they were left in much the same condition as they were at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant also disputes the claim for emptying the bins on the basis that there is no evidence. They are correct. The lawns and gardens were in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. In this case I have sufficient evidence on which to make a proper objective assessment. The lawns are in the same condition. However, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the gardens in the same reasonable condition they were at the commencement and has also left some garden furniture. For garden maintenance and removing the small amount of furniture, I award the landlord $300.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the heated towel rail in the bathroom, the carpet in the loft area, the kitchen benchtop above the dishwasher, and a wall corner in the entrance / hallway.
The landlord is claiming $223.00 to reinstall the heated towel rail, $500.00 toward the cost of replacing the carpet, $422.63 to repair the benchtop, and $800.00 to repair the wall.
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 Act.
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) the Act.
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 Act. 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 Act.
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 Act.
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 property manager/s] has produced a pre tenancy photograph of the heated towel rail in the bathroom, attached to the wall. [The property manager/s] has produced a photograph of the towel rail at the end of the tenancy after it had been reinstalled. [The property manager/s] states that a property manager located the towel rail in a cupboard and that the brackets used to affix it to the wall had been damaged. However, there are no photographs showing the damage as described.
The tenant states that during the tenancy the brackets failed, the rail simply fell off, and they placed it in a cupboard. The tenant states that they raised it with a property manager but did not press for it to be re-instated. [The property manager/s] states that the landlord had no record of the matter being raised. The tenancy inspection report and photographs from 20 April 2023, do not record any issues in the bathroom. However, the area where the towel rail is located cannot be clearly seen, and there appears to be a metal stand or shelf in front. Although it is more likely than not that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, without being able to make an objective assessment as to the nature of the damage, I cannot rule out that it is no more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had all the carpet replaced. [The property manager/s] has produced photographs of the carpet in the loft, which the landlord states has been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. There is a large hole near the main window and some staining. The pre tenancy photographs of the carpet in the loft show significant wear and tear. The pre tenancy photographs do not show the area in front of the window. There is staining to the carpet. The carpet is also “pulled,” and there appears to be no underlay. The tenant states that the carpet had simply been placed on the floor. Judging from the photographs this appears to be the case. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage is necessarily more than fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. I also note that the carpet was well past its useful life span at the start of the tenancy and in a poor condition.
[The property manager/s] has produced a close-up photograph of a section of bench top above the dishwasher which, the landlord claims has been damaged over and above fair wear and tear. [The property manager/s] states that the damage is consistent with having repeatedly cut things on the bench without using a chopping board.
The tenant denies liability, stating that the damage was present at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant further states that because of the angle and distance of the pre tenancy photograph does not provide a clear enough comparison due to the angle and distance. The tenant also states that the matter was never raised as an issue at any inspection over the past five years. Like the carpet the benchtop is showing general signs of wear and tear commensurate with its age. I accept the tenants’ submissions. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
Concerning the wall corner in the hallway, in addition to replacing all the carpet, the landlord had the entire property redecorated. The only damage the landlord is claiming is that to a wall corner in the entrance / hallway. The pre tenancy inspection report shows some minor damage to the wall corner concerned. The photograph taken at the end of the tenancy shows significantly more damage to the corner. The tenant states that it is no more than fair wear and tear. The landlord submits the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
My objective assessment is that the damage to the wall corner occurring during the tenancy is more than fair wear and tear, and more likely than not the result of carelessness. The landlord’s claim is based on what they have experienced as the costs of repairing similar damage, but there is no evidence supporting this. Considering the condition of the wall corner at the commencement of the tenancy, I find an award of $400.00 to be reasonable. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Taking a step back my overall assessment is that both parties have been substantially successful either bringing or defending the claims. The landlord has been wholly successful with their claim for rent arrears, partially successful in four, and unsuccessful in three of the other claims. The tenant has been wholly successful defending three of the claims and partly successful in three others. Accordingly, I order suppression of both party’s names and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4663769 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4663769 — Rent arrears

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