What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689793 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4689793?

Cleaning: $212.50 awarded to landlord; Walls – Repainting (Depreciated: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $307.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689793?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9940067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689793 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4689793?

Cleaning: $212.50 awarded to landlord; Walls – Repainting (Depreciated: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $307.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689793?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9940067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689793 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689793 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4689793 — net $836.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$212.50	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$307.98	Water rates
Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated	$316.25	Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated
Net award	$836.73
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$836.73

Claims and awards for application 4689793 — net $836.73 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $212.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $307.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated

Amount: $316.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated

Net award

Landlord $836.73

Bond

Landlord $2,080.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $836.73

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Northwood Residential Investments Ltd 1 $836.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Northwood Residential Investments Ltd 1: $836.73 [The tenant/s]: $1,243.27

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In general, the onus or burden of proving a particular claim, rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case, the landlord). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not” correct.
This was a tenancy of almost four years. The tenants had already accepted their obligation for paying the water rates and carpet stain removal cost.
This was the first tenancy is what was a new house at commencement.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $307.98. This was not disputed by the tenants.

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 landlord claims $180.00 for cleaning to remove grease and fly dirt. The commercial invoice describes the work carried out as: •Clean up stains, and pink paint on a lounge curtains linings also the three bedrooms curtains •Cleaning off calcium inside and outside shower door •Dusting out and clean up kitchen bench after painting •Vacuum cleaner carpet after installing •Mobbing (sic) and tidy kitchen vinyl.
In terms of the claim for cleaning, the words ‘reasonably clean and reasonably tidy’ do not impose an absolute standard. This standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances, or the outside of a house. It is common that a landlord may wish to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
This claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. I am mindful of the obligation of the tenant to undertake cleaning to a reasonable standard only, as opposed to a professional standard. From my assessment of the evidence, the vast majority of the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. Having further reviewed the evidence, I do not consider that the tenant is liable for further cleaning of the curtains or the shower glass as commercially conducted. The other invoiced tasks were post-painting clean up. These tasks appear to be matters more appropriately addressed with a “commercial clean” by the painter or others as selected by the landlord, rather than a tenant requirement. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance following a near four-year tenancy. The claim for additional cleaning costs of $180.00 is dismissed.
The landlord claims $212.50 for carpet cleaning. This was not disputed by the tenants. It is awarded in full.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The landlord claimed the following repair due to tenant damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Wall painting ($1,265.00) “Areas include the kitchen, entrance, lounge walls, hallway wall and ceiling and room off the entrance way.” The need for painting of some areas was not disputed. The tenants had repaired some holes but could not find a good matching paint. I find the tenants are liable for some painting costs but the extent of the repainted areas is not evidentially supported. Further, the economic life of a painted wall is not long. One estimate, as used by Tenancy Services, is five years. Considering the extent and depreciation, I make a reduced award of $316.25. b. Living ceiling repainting ($1092.50). The tenants used “wet wipes” to remove fly dirt from the ceiling. This impacted the ceiling finish and left a “splotchy” look from some angles. The use of wet wipes for such a task was initially recommended by the property manager during the tenancy The landlord now sought reimbursement for the repainting cost. This claim is problematic as any damage to the ceiling finish is considered as more than likely a result of the tenants cleaning fly dirt as instructed. During the almost four-year tenancy no commercial cleaning of the ceiling took place. I consider if the landlord instructs a tenant to clean a ceiling of fly dirt during the tenancy, such as here, the nature of its removal by a such a process, even when conducted in a reasonable manner, is likely to leave some impact. Given the landlord instruction as to the means and method, I leave the landlord to absorb any costs of repainting due to changes in the ceiling finish. Even if I had found some award should be made, depreciation would reduce the amount significantly from that sought. I dismiss the claim for the ceiling repainting.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan as detailed above. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. Of the three awards made, two were not disputed by the tenants prior. The overall performance of the tenant obligations during and at the end of the tenancy appears good. This was a long tenancy with minimal end of tenancy issues after a demonstrable effort of the tenants to return the premises in a reasonable condition after a long tenancy. I see no public interest in naming them but I do consider a potential downside to them from publication, disproportionate to the awards made here, and I order suppression of the tenant details.
The landlord requested suppression in its application but given the lack of success no landlord suppression is ordered. Application filing fee
The landlord sought the application filing fee. Given the limited success of the application, no return of the application filing fee is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4689793 — net $836.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$212.50	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$307.98	Water rates
Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated	$316.25	Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated
Net award	$836.73
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$836.73

Claims and awards for application 4689793 — net $836.73 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $212.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $307.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated

Amount: $316.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Walls – repainting (depreciated

Net award

Landlord $836.73

Bond

Landlord $2,080.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $836.73

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Northwood Residential Investments Ltd 1 $836.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Northwood Residential Investments Ltd 1: $836.73 [The tenant/s]: $1,243.27

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In general, the onus or burden of proving a particular claim, rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case, the landlord). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not” correct.
This was a tenancy of almost four years. The tenants had already accepted their obligation for paying the water rates and carpet stain removal cost.
This was the first tenancy is what was a new house at commencement.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $307.98. This was not disputed by the tenants.

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 landlord claims $180.00 for cleaning to remove grease and fly dirt. The commercial invoice describes the work carried out as: •Clean up stains, and pink paint on a lounge curtains linings also the three bedrooms curtains •Cleaning off calcium inside and outside shower door •Dusting out and clean up kitchen bench after painting •Vacuum cleaner carpet after installing •Mobbing (sic) and tidy kitchen vinyl.
In terms of the claim for cleaning, the words ‘reasonably clean and reasonably tidy’ do not impose an absolute standard. This standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances, or the outside of a house. It is common that a landlord may wish to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
This claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. I am mindful of the obligation of the tenant to undertake cleaning to a reasonable standard only, as opposed to a professional standard. From my assessment of the evidence, the vast majority of the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. Having further reviewed the evidence, I do not consider that the tenant is liable for further cleaning of the curtains or the shower glass as commercially conducted. The other invoiced tasks were post-painting clean up. These tasks appear to be matters more appropriately addressed with a “commercial clean” by the painter or others as selected by the landlord, rather than a tenant requirement. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance following a near four-year tenancy. The claim for additional cleaning costs of $180.00 is dismissed.
The landlord claims $212.50 for carpet cleaning. This was not disputed by the tenants. It is awarded in full.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The landlord claimed the following repair due to tenant damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Wall painting ($1,265.00) “Areas include the kitchen, entrance, lounge walls, hallway wall and ceiling and room off the entrance way.” The need for painting of some areas was not disputed. The tenants had repaired some holes but could not find a good matching paint. I find the tenants are liable for some painting costs but the extent of the repainted areas is not evidentially supported. Further, the economic life of a painted wall is not long. One estimate, as used by Tenancy Services, is five years. Considering the extent and depreciation, I make a reduced award of $316.25. b. Living ceiling repainting ($1092.50). The tenants used “wet wipes” to remove fly dirt from the ceiling. This impacted the ceiling finish and left a “splotchy” look from some angles. The use of wet wipes for such a task was initially recommended by the property manager during the tenancy The landlord now sought reimbursement for the repainting cost. This claim is problematic as any damage to the ceiling finish is considered as more than likely a result of the tenants cleaning fly dirt as instructed. During the almost four-year tenancy no commercial cleaning of the ceiling took place. I consider if the landlord instructs a tenant to clean a ceiling of fly dirt during the tenancy, such as here, the nature of its removal by a such a process, even when conducted in a reasonable manner, is likely to leave some impact. Given the landlord instruction as to the means and method, I leave the landlord to absorb any costs of repainting due to changes in the ceiling finish. Even if I had found some award should be made, depreciation would reduce the amount significantly from that sought. I dismiss the claim for the ceiling repainting.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan as detailed above. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. Of the three awards made, two were not disputed by the tenants prior. The overall performance of the tenant obligations during and at the end of the tenancy appears good. This was a long tenancy with minimal end of tenancy issues after a demonstrable effort of the tenants to return the premises in a reasonable condition after a long tenancy. I see no public interest in naming them but I do consider a potential downside to them from publication, disproportionate to the awards made here, and I order suppression of the tenant details.
The landlord requested suppression in its application but given the lack of success no landlord suppression is ordered. Application filing fee
The landlord sought the application filing fee. Given the limited success of the application, no return of the application filing fee is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689793 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689793 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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 water rates?

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