What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685430 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $988.69 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4685430?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bench Top: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $465.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685430?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10149108-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685430 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $988.69 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4685430?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bench Top: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $465.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685430?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10149108-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4685430 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685430 — net $988.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$184.00	The claim for carpet cleaning is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench, ceiling in the loung…
Repairs: bench top	$218.50	Repairs: bench top
Cleaning	$100.00	The claim for carpet cleaning is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench, ceiling in the loung…
Repairs: walls	$465.75	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$988.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$988.69

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $988.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $988.69 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,011.31 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by their mother.

The tenancy commenced on 17 February 2023 and was for a fixed term. The tenant’s personal circumstances changed, and the parties agreed to bring the tenancy to an end on 24 August 2023. On 14 September 2023, the landlord filed a claim for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord included a claim for reasonable costs associated with breaking the fixed term, which they are entitled. [The landlord’s representative/s] advises that the matter has been settled and that claim is withdrawn.

The claims before the Tribunal are that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition, is liable for stains to the carpet, and for damage to the kitchen bench, ceiling in the lounge, and walls in the lounge, and one of the properties two bedrooms.

The onus of proving a claim will rest 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”). Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy - cleaning.

The property is a two-bedroom unit with an open plan kitchen / dining room / lounge, two bedrooms, ensuite and main bathroom. The property was about 14 months old at the commencement of the tenancy, with the tenant being the second occupant following the previous tenant by about a month. The property manager overseeing the tenancy has since left. [The landlord’s representative/s] have only had dealings with the property after the claim was lodged, and thus are unable to give first hand evidence, rely on records kept by the property manager.

The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report dated 08 February 2023, an end of tenancy inspection report dated 23 August 2023, and a report dated 05 May 2023, all containing photographs showing the inside of the property. The landlord submits the photographs demonstrate that the tenant has failed in their obligations to leave some areas of the property in a reasonably clean condition, namely the oven, benchtop, kitchen cupboards, dishwasher, walls in the lounge, ceiling, laundry, windows, ensuite bathroom, main bathroom, and vinyl flooring in the kitchen and lounge / dining room.

The landlord also submits that the photographs are sufficient to establish to the required standard that the tenant is responsible for stains to the carpet on the stairs leading to the upstairs bedrooms, and a stain in one of those bedrooms. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show a small stain area on one of the stairs near the bottom and three stains, approximately 8 – 10cm in diameter, in the bedroom. Each stain was removed. The total cost was $184.00.

The tenant denies liability for the stains. Regarding the stair stain, the tenant argues that due to the angle and distance of the pre tenancy photograph, it is not possible to make a proper before and after comparison. The tenant also submits that the property manager was consistently rude and disrespectful throughout the tenancy, refusing to remove their shoes before entry, and which may have caused the stain.

[The landlord’s representative/s] refers to a comment in the 05 May 2023 inspection report where the property manager has recorded that the tenant admitted to the stain being caused by child spilling something on the stairs and attempting to remove the stain using a rug doctor. The tenant cannot recall making the admission and states if they did, they had likely been bullied into doing do. Referring to the end of tenancy report, and another close up photograph of the stain, [The landlord’s representative/s] points out that the stain appears reduced in size and colour, evidence of the tenant’s attempt to remove the stain.

The tenant denies that they are responsible for the staining in the bedroom, stating that the room was only used to store children’s toys and not for activities likely to cause staining use and on that basis the staining.

Regarding the general cleaning, the tenant denies they have not left the property in a reasonably clean condition, stating that the vacated the property before the end date and then spent a considerable time with a family member cleaning. Law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, this includes the carpet, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1) of the Act.

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994). Decision

Starting with the claim for general cleaning, as the property is new, the surfaces are easier to clean than older ones. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the benchtop around the cooktop, the toilet in the ensuite bathroom, the shower in the ensuite bathroom, and the vinyl flooring in the kitchen / dining room in at least the same condition it was at the commencement of the tenancy. However, I am not satisfied as to the other areas. Accordingly, I award a portion of the amount claimed, $100.00.

I find it more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the stain on the stairs. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the stain is consistent with a spilled liquid and reduced a size and colour between the time the initial photograph was taken and the end of the tenancy, suggesting the tenant had attempted to remove it. I am satisfied the three stains on the carpet in the bedroom occurred during the tenancy. The photograph taken of the room with during the tenancy suggests that it was more than just a storeroom showing signs that it had also been used as a playroom. The claim for carpet cleaning is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench, ceiling in the lounge, and walls in the lounge, and one of the properties two bedrooms.

The landlord is claiming $218.50 to repair a chip to the edge of the kitchen bench top between the cooktop and oven, $161.00 to repaint a small area of the ceiling in the lounge, and $465.75 to repair damage to walls in the kitchen / dining room, lounge, bedroom, and a wardrobe door. Law

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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.

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).

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of 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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Decision

The tenant accepts that the damage to the wall’s bedroom and kitchen / dining room. The tenant states that the damage to the wall in the kitchen / dining room was caused by the installation of a child gate, the damage to the wall in the bedroom and lounge by a temporary curtain installed for more privacy. The tenant states they plastered and sanded the affected areas and had been waiting for the property manager to provide details of the wall colour after which they intended completing the job.

The tenant states that the damage to the wardrobe door had likely been caused when moving furniture, and again that they had plastered and sanded the affected area.

I am satisfied that this damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord states that the repair completed by the tenant was not to a reasonable standard and required redoing. There is no evidence the tenant is a plasterer or painter. I accept the landlord’s submission.

The tenant accepts that the chip to the edge of the kitchen bench has occurred during the tenancy but is unable to provide an explanation as to how it may have occurred. In the absence of an explanation, it was likely the result of carelessness. The amount claimed is less than the insurance excess.

Considering the age of the damaged areas and the nature of the repairs I make no deduction for betterment.

Regarding the damage to the ceiling on the ceiling the tenant denies responsibility. After considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage to the ceiling occurred during the tenancy. I note that there was some pre-existing damage to the property. The photographs are not clear enough to make a proper comparison. That part of the claim is declined. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially 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.

It is my opinion that both parties have been substantially successful either prosecuting or in defending the claims, and on that basis, I am satisfied there are grounds to order suppression of both party’s names and the address of the property.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685430 — net $988.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$184.00	The claim for carpet cleaning is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench, ceiling in the loung…
Repairs: bench top	$218.50	Repairs: bench top
Cleaning	$100.00	The claim for carpet cleaning is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench, ceiling in the loung…
Repairs: walls	$465.75	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$988.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$988.69

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $988.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by their mother.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, this includes the carpet, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1) of the Act.

The tenant states that the damage to the wardrobe door had likely been caused when moving furniture, and again that they had plastered and sanded the affected area.

Considering the age of the damaged areas and the nature of the repairs I make no deduction for betterment.

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685430 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685430 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions