What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666589 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Silverfern Property Management Limited $549.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4666589?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666589?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9823586-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666589 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Silverfern Property Management Limited $549.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4666589?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666589?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9823586-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666589 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666589 — net $549.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$299.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$549.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$549.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Silverfern Property Management Limited $549.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Li appeared as the landlord's representative. Of note, Mr Li informed me that his company is no longer managing the property. Mr Li said he appeared because his company was managing the property at the material time. Mr Li also informed me that when he arrived at the property doing the inspection the landlord had already commenced the repairs.
[Tenant 1], the tenant, appeared, but not his wife, [Tenant 2].
[Tenant 1] informed me that his wife was unwell today. He understood that my decision applied to her as a tenant under the tenancy agreement.
[Tenant 1] applied to the Tribunal under section 22B(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) seeking an order for a refund of his bond.
The landlord then cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
The applicant, in this case, the landlord, must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

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.
[Tenant 1] did not dispute his liability for the cleaning cost of $299 as the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
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 allegedly caused during the tenancy: a. Unblock sewer; b. Carpet replacement; and c. Repairs & repaint. Unblock sewer
Mr Li submitted an invoice from [Drainage company], claiming that the landlord told him the sewer was blocked during the tenancy. However, upon reviewing the invoice, I found that the work description was "Garbage disposal and kitchen sink drain cleaning", which had no relevance to unblocking the sewer.
Furthermore, Mr Li failed to provide photographic evidence to support his claim that the sewer was blocked during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the sewer was blocked during the tenancy. As a result, the claim under this heading must be dismissed. Carpet replacement
Mr Li claimed that [Tenant 1] had caused damage to the carpet during the tenancy, which had red and dark stains on part of the carpet. The room size is about 4 metres by 2 metres.
[Tenant 1] admitted that he was responsible for the damage but disputed that he was responsible for replacing the carpet.
[Tenant 1] argued: a. that he was not given the opportunity to address the issue; b. that the landlord had provided a quote for carpet replacement rather than an invoice (the carpet had not yet been replaced as of today); and c. that the quote was also provided late, three days shy of two months after [Tenant 1] had vacated the premises.
Mr. Li had the burden to provide evidence that the carpet was beyond professional cleaning and that replacing it was the only option left. However, apart from two photos showing the stains, Mr. Li did not submit any evidence that the carpet was commercially cleaned.
Pursuant to section 49 of the RTA, Mr. Li was required to take reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from [Tenant 1]’s breach. However, there is no evidence to suggest that replacing the carpet was the only option.
Because [Tenant 1] is responsible for the damage caused by his children, which is more than fair wear and tear. The appropriate compensation for this is to award $250 in favour of the landlord towards the cost of commercial cleaning the carpet. Repairs & repaint
Mr. Li submitted photos to show where the damages were on the walls. However, he did not have any photos of the damage before the work was carried out by the landlord. It was difficult to identify the actual damage from the photos submitted by Mr. Li, and he was also unsure of the type of damage alleged.
It is concerning that the invoice submitted to support the claim did not provide a detailed breakdown of the repairs carried out, apart from a general description of repair, repaint walls, and doors. The invoice also includes repairs for the downstairs sliding door lock replacement and polishing of the ceiling and repaint.
Based on my understanding, the claim was only for repairs to the walls and repaint. It did not include additional repairs, such as repainting doors, replacing the sliding door lock, and polishing the ceiling.
Therefore, I am unable to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that damages to the walls existed during the tenancy. As a result, I am dismissing the claim. Filing fee
Both parties achieved some success in their respective application and will bear their own costs. Suppression
Both parties applied for their names and identifying information to be suppressed. After considering their applications, I have granted [Tenant 1]'s request for name suppression as I consider he has succeeded in his application.
However, I have declined the landlord's (Mr Li) application for suppression as I do not consider he has substantially succeeded in his application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666589 — net $549.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$299.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$549.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$549.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Silverfern Property Management Limited $549.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Li appeared as the landlord's representative. Of note, Mr Li informed me that his company is no longer managing the property. Mr Li said he appeared because his company was managing the property at the material time. Mr Li also informed me that when he arrived at the property doing the inspection the landlord had already commenced the repairs.
[Tenant 1], the tenant, appeared, but not his wife, [Tenant 2].
[Tenant 1] informed me that his wife was unwell today. He understood that my decision applied to her as a tenant under the tenancy agreement.
[Tenant 1] applied to the Tribunal under section 22B(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) seeking an order for a refund of his bond.
The landlord then cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
The applicant, in this case, the landlord, must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

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.
[Tenant 1] did not dispute his liability for the cleaning cost of $299 as the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
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 allegedly caused during the tenancy: a. Unblock sewer; b. Carpet replacement; and c. Repairs & repaint. Unblock sewer
Mr Li submitted an invoice from [Drainage company], claiming that the landlord told him the sewer was blocked during the tenancy. However, upon reviewing the invoice, I found that the work description was "Garbage disposal and kitchen sink drain cleaning", which had no relevance to unblocking the sewer.
Furthermore, Mr Li failed to provide photographic evidence to support his claim that the sewer was blocked during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the sewer was blocked during the tenancy. As a result, the claim under this heading must be dismissed. Carpet replacement
Mr Li claimed that [Tenant 1] had caused damage to the carpet during the tenancy, which had red and dark stains on part of the carpet. The room size is about 4 metres by 2 metres.
[Tenant 1] admitted that he was responsible for the damage but disputed that he was responsible for replacing the carpet.
[Tenant 1] argued: a. that he was not given the opportunity to address the issue; b. that the landlord had provided a quote for carpet replacement rather than an invoice (the carpet had not yet been replaced as of today); and c. that the quote was also provided late, three days shy of two months after [Tenant 1] had vacated the premises.
Mr. Li had the burden to provide evidence that the carpet was beyond professional cleaning and that replacing it was the only option left. However, apart from two photos showing the stains, Mr. Li did not submit any evidence that the carpet was commercially cleaned.
Pursuant to section 49 of the RTA, Mr. Li was required to take reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from [Tenant 1]’s breach. However, there is no evidence to suggest that replacing the carpet was the only option.
Because [Tenant 1] is responsible for the damage caused by his children, which is more than fair wear and tear. The appropriate compensation for this is to award $250 in favour of the landlord towards the cost of commercial cleaning the carpet. Repairs & repaint
Mr. Li submitted photos to show where the damages were on the walls. However, he did not have any photos of the damage before the work was carried out by the landlord. It was difficult to identify the actual damage from the photos submitted by Mr. Li, and he was also unsure of the type of damage alleged.
It is concerning that the invoice submitted to support the claim did not provide a detailed breakdown of the repairs carried out, apart from a general description of repair, repaint walls, and doors. The invoice also includes repairs for the downstairs sliding door lock replacement and polishing of the ceiling and repaint.
Based on my understanding, the claim was only for repairs to the walls and repaint. It did not include additional repairs, such as repainting doors, replacing the sliding door lock, and polishing the ceiling.
Therefore, I am unable to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that damages to the walls existed during the tenancy. As a result, I am dismissing the claim. Filing fee
Both parties achieved some success in their respective application and will bear their own costs. Suppression
Both parties applied for their names and identifying information to be suppressed. After considering their applications, I have granted [Tenant 1]'s request for name suppression as I consider he has succeeded in his application.
However, I have declined the landlord's (Mr Li) application for suppression as I do not consider he has substantially succeeded in his application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666589 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666589 — Cleanliness

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