What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4665089?

The tribunal order states: Ricardas Ruikis and Sarah-Rose Byron Hill are to pay Helen McIlhone $885.22

How much money was awarded in case 4665089?

Cleaning: $56.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $474.38 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $87.16 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Track: $17.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Study Curtains: $99.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665089?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9645652-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4665089?

The tribunal order states: Ricardas Ruikis and Sarah-Rose Byron Hill are to pay Helen McIlhone $885.22

How much money was awarded in case 4665089?

Cleaning: $56.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $474.38 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $87.16 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Track: $17.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Study Curtains: $99.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665089?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9645652-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Lochmore Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4665089 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665089 — net $885.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Study curtains	$99.00	Replace furnishings: Study curtains
Replace furnishings: Curtain track	$17.99	Replace furnishings: Curtain track
Cleaning: Windows	$130.00	Cleaning: Windows
Cleaning: General (50% of invoice	$56.25	Cleaning: General (50% of invoice
Lawns and Garden work: Replace damaged roses	$87.16	Lawns and Garden work: Replace damaged roses
Lawns and Garden work	$474.38	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$885.22
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$885.22

Order

Ricardas Ruikis and Sarah-Rose Byron Hill are to pay Helen McIlhone $885.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3635544-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Helen McIlhone: $885.22 Ricardas Ruikis and Sarah-Rose Byron Hill: $1,494.78

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 Applicant was not the landlord at the beginning of this tenancy but had taken over the obligation from a family member (“the owner”) during the course of the tenancy.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an invoice for $130.00 and photographic evidence to show that the windows and some window tracks were not cleaned to a reasonable standard. The tenants accepted that they had not cleaned the windows but claimed that they were dirty at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the windows were cleaned before the tenancy began and the pre-tenancy photographs support that claim.
The landlord and tenants provided contradictory evidence as to the general cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs confirm that, in some respects, the property was not cleaned to a reasonable standard.
I have discounted the general cleaning invoice by fifty percent ($56.25 from the $112.50 claimed). Although a landlord may wish a property to be perfectly clean and ready for a new tenant at the end of a tenancy, the outgoing tenant is only required to leave the property reasonably clean. Some of the cleaning claimed by the landlord goes beyond what can reasonably be expected of a tenant and the tenants provided evidence to show that they had cleaned some areas of the premises.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish and has provided pre and post tenancy photographs and an invoice for $474.38 to support this claim.
I accept the landlord’s evidence in relation to the condition of the garden and the rubbish. The tenants were obliged under the tenancy agreement and the Act to keep the garden reasonably tidy and did not do so.
The parties agreed that one set of curtains in the study had been replaced by the tenant during the tenancy. The tenants said this was because they had been accidently damaged, and they had attempted to find curtains to match the other curtains in the house. The tenant has an obligation, under section 40(d) of the Act, to report any damage to the landlord and it would then be for the landlord to determine the best course of action. The curtains supplied by the tenants were a different colour from the original and did not properly fit the window. The landlord has replaced these with a new set of their own choosing.
The replacement curtains chosen are from a chain store and are cost effective and the pre-tenancy photographs show that the original curtains were reasonably new, so I have not applied any depreciation and award the full $99.00 claimed for this set of curtains.
The amounts ordered above 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 under 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy, the tenants had removed and stored some curtain tracks.
The landlord claimed that one track was damaged during this process and has claimed $17.99 for its replacement. The tenants were unaware of this damage but had not attempted to rehang the tracks so it may not have been apparent.
I find that this track was damaged during the tenancy and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
During the tenancy, the tenants had removed some curtains and sealed them in vacuum sealed bags.
When these vacuum sealed curtains were unsealed at the end of the tenancy to be put back up, the parties agree that they were in no condition to be rehung. The curtains were stained and wrinkled and smelt offensive.
The tenants gave evidence that early in the tenancy, due to the smell and condition of these curtains, they had asked the owner if they could be cleaned, and he had indicated that it would not be worth doing so. They gave further evidence that he had given permission to remove these curtains and to store them in this manner.
The Applicant was unable to refute this claim except to point to the pre-tenancy inspection where both parties had confirmed that the curtains were all in good order. The tenants claimed they did not realise the state of the curtains until some days into the tenancy when they removed them with the owner’s permission.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants did not have the owner’s permission to remove and vacuum seal these curtains.
The landlord’s claim for replacement of the vacuum sealed curtains is dismissed.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not return the garage remote controls in working order and has claimed $400.00 for a replacement garage remote system.
The tenants gave evidence that one control did not work from the beginning of the tenancy and that the other was working when the tenants departed the property (although the battery was removed by the tenants before they left).
As this landlord was not present at the beginning of the tenancy, she was not able to provide evidence to refute the tenants’ claim that one remote was not in working order at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs provided support the tenants’ claim that at least one control was in a very bad state of repair. Additionally, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the remaining remote was not working at the end of the tenancy or that the entire system required replacement as a consequence of any breach by the tenants.
I dismiss the claim for replacement of the garage door remote control system
At the beginning of the tenancy, the Applicant pruned roses outside the master bedroom window. The roses would not have needed to be pruned again until the tenancy ended one year later.
The property owner consented to the tenants pruning some plants along the driveway to improve access to vehicles for children’s car seats. There was additional communication about pruning flowers from various plants to help reduce chances of bee stings.
In March of 2023, the owner asked the tenants to stop pruning these plants, including the roses in question, as they considered it excessive and damaging to the plants.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the roses in front of the bedroom window had been pruned almost to the ground. To avoid bee stings, the tenants could have simply removed flower buds without causing any damage to the plant itself.
I accept the landlord’s claim for four white flower carpet roses, being $87.16.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has also claimed for replacement of six other plants along the property fence line. The tenants claim that these plants were damaged by neighbours trespassing on the property as a short cut to the street.
I find that the landlord has not proven that this damage was caused by the tenants, and I dismiss the claim for additional replacement plants. Filing fee
As Helen McIlhone has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665089 — net $885.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Study curtains	$99.00	Replace furnishings: Study curtains
Replace furnishings: Curtain track	$17.99	Replace furnishings: Curtain track
Cleaning: Windows	$130.00	Cleaning: Windows
Cleaning: General (50% of invoice	$56.25	Cleaning: General (50% of invoice
Lawns and Garden work: Replace damaged roses	$87.16	Lawns and Garden work: Replace damaged roses
Lawns and Garden work	$474.38	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$885.22
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$885.22

Order

Ricardas Ruikis and Sarah-Rose Byron Hill are to pay Helen McIlhone $885.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3635544-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Helen McIlhone: $885.22 Ricardas Ruikis and Sarah-Rose Byron Hill: $1,494.78

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 Applicant was not the landlord at the beginning of this tenancy but had taken over the obligation from a family member (“the owner”) during the course of the tenancy.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an invoice for $130.00 and photographic evidence to show that the windows and some window tracks were not cleaned to a reasonable standard. The tenants accepted that they had not cleaned the windows but claimed that they were dirty at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the windows were cleaned before the tenancy began and the pre-tenancy photographs support that claim.
The landlord and tenants provided contradictory evidence as to the general cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs confirm that, in some respects, the property was not cleaned to a reasonable standard.
I have discounted the general cleaning invoice by fifty percent ($56.25 from the $112.50 claimed). Although a landlord may wish a property to be perfectly clean and ready for a new tenant at the end of a tenancy, the outgoing tenant is only required to leave the property reasonably clean. Some of the cleaning claimed by the landlord goes beyond what can reasonably be expected of a tenant and the tenants provided evidence to show that they had cleaned some areas of the premises.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish and has provided pre and post tenancy photographs and an invoice for $474.38 to support this claim.
I accept the landlord’s evidence in relation to the condition of the garden and the rubbish. The tenants were obliged under the tenancy agreement and the Act to keep the garden reasonably tidy and did not do so.
The parties agreed that one set of curtains in the study had been replaced by the tenant during the tenancy. The tenants said this was because they had been accidently damaged, and they had attempted to find curtains to match the other curtains in the house. The tenant has an obligation, under section 40(d) of the Act, to report any damage to the landlord and it would then be for the landlord to determine the best course of action. The curtains supplied by the tenants were a different colour from the original and did not properly fit the window. The landlord has replaced these with a new set of their own choosing.
The replacement curtains chosen are from a chain store and are cost effective and the pre-tenancy photographs show that the original curtains were reasonably new, so I have not applied any depreciation and award the full $99.00 claimed for this set of curtains.
The amounts ordered above 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 under 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy, the tenants had removed and stored some curtain tracks.
The landlord claimed that one track was damaged during this process and has claimed $17.99 for its replacement. The tenants were unaware of this damage but had not attempted to rehang the tracks so it may not have been apparent.
I find that this track was damaged during the tenancy and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
During the tenancy, the tenants had removed some curtains and sealed them in vacuum sealed bags.
When these vacuum sealed curtains were unsealed at the end of the tenancy to be put back up, the parties agree that they were in no condition to be rehung. The curtains were stained and wrinkled and smelt offensive.
The tenants gave evidence that early in the tenancy, due to the smell and condition of these curtains, they had asked the owner if they could be cleaned, and he had indicated that it would not be worth doing so. They gave further evidence that he had given permission to remove these curtains and to store them in this manner.
The Applicant was unable to refute this claim except to point to the pre-tenancy inspection where both parties had confirmed that the curtains were all in good order. The tenants claimed they did not realise the state of the curtains until some days into the tenancy when they removed them with the owner’s permission.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants did not have the owner’s permission to remove and vacuum seal these curtains.
The landlord’s claim for replacement of the vacuum sealed curtains is dismissed.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not return the garage remote controls in working order and has claimed $400.00 for a replacement garage remote system.
The tenants gave evidence that one control did not work from the beginning of the tenancy and that the other was working when the tenants departed the property (although the battery was removed by the tenants before they left).
As this landlord was not present at the beginning of the tenancy, she was not able to provide evidence to refute the tenants’ claim that one remote was not in working order at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs provided support the tenants’ claim that at least one control was in a very bad state of repair. Additionally, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the remaining remote was not working at the end of the tenancy or that the entire system required replacement as a consequence of any breach by the tenants.
I dismiss the claim for replacement of the garage door remote control system
At the beginning of the tenancy, the Applicant pruned roses outside the master bedroom window. The roses would not have needed to be pruned again until the tenancy ended one year later.
The property owner consented to the tenants pruning some plants along the driveway to improve access to vehicles for children’s car seats. There was additional communication about pruning flowers from various plants to help reduce chances of bee stings.
In March of 2023, the owner asked the tenants to stop pruning these plants, including the roses in question, as they considered it excessive and damaging to the plants.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the roses in front of the bedroom window had been pruned almost to the ground. To avoid bee stings, the tenants could have simply removed flower buds without causing any damage to the plant itself.
I accept the landlord’s claim for four white flower carpet roses, being $87.16.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has also claimed for replacement of six other plants along the property fence line. The tenants claim that these plants were damaged by neighbours trespassing on the property as a short cut to the street.
I find that the landlord has not proven that this damage was caused by the tenants, and I dismiss the claim for additional replacement plants. Filing fee
As Helen McIlhone has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665089 — Cleanliness at 4 Lochmore Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665089 — Cleanliness at 4 Lochmore Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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