What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693639 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4693639?

Painting Walls And Ceilings: $448.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Door: $164.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693639?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9657741-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693639 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4693639?

Painting Walls And Ceilings: $448.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Door: $164.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693639?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9657741-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Walsh Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693639 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

9 Walsh Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693639 — Tenancy dispute | 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 4693639 — net $612.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace door	$164.00	Replace door
Painting walls and ceilings	$448.96	Painting walls and ceilings
Net award	$612.96
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$612.96

Claims and awards for application 4693639 — net $612.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace door

Amount: $164.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace door

Painting walls and ceilings

Amount: $448.96
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting walls and ceilings

Net award

Landlord $612.96

Bond

Landlord $2,400.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $612.96

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Painting walls and ceilings c. The landlord claimed there was soot on the ceilings and walls throughout the interior of the property from the tenant’s use of t…
Rent Arrears — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Courtney Teague is to pay [The landlord/s] $612.96 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,212.96 Courtney Teague: $1,187.04

Reasons

[The landlord/s], and her mother, [The landlord’s mother], as her support person attended the hearing, as did the tenant, Ms Teague, and her mother, also Ms Teague, as her support person. As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that [The landlord’s mother] would need to provide evidence and so she left the hearing room part way through the hearing, only returning later to provide her evidence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, remedy of breach, using the premises for unlawful purpose, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties did not agree on the date the tenancy ended. Both parties acknowledged that the property was put on the market for sale, that Ms Teague eventually texted [The landlord/s] on 30 October 2022 that they would be moving out 2 weeks from then and that the tenant considered she vacated the property on 10 November 2022.
[The landlord/s] did not accept that the tenant texting her notice that she was moving out was sufficient notice to end the tenancy, as she said it did not meet the formalities required to do so.
Ms Teague said she felt harassed by [The landlord/s], [The landlord's mother] and the real estate agent who all messaged her continually, and that [The landlord's mother] and the real estate agent also came to her workplace a number of times. Ms Teague said this created a lot of stress for her, on top of the property being listed for sale, the demands of her to have the property made ready for sales marketing photographs and open homes, and the fact she was pregnant at the time. She said eventually she could not take anymore and gave notice that they were moving out. She maintained that during the whole tenancy, she mainly dealt with [The landlord's mother], who acted as [The landlord/s] agent, and that she only met [The landlord/s] once. Ms Teague said she texted both [The landlord/s] and [The landlord's mother] giving notice on 30 October 2022 that they would be moving out in 2 weeks, and that [The landlord's mother] texted back to her that 2 weeks to move out was fine. Ms Teague said [The landlord's mother] told her that 2 weeks notice would work well for the landlord, as they needed to have work done on the property before the open homes began. Ms Teague said she did not hear back from [The landlord/s] to contradict her 2 weeks’ notice. As a result, she believed the landlord was happy for her to move out as of 10 November 2022.
[The landlord's mother] confirmed that she told Ms Teague that 2 weeks to move out was fine and also confirmed she had essentially acted as agent for her daughter, [The landlord/s], as her daughter had just had a baby and had health issues so she did not want to cause her stress or worry. [The landlord/s] also confirmed she had not gone back to the tenant directly to dispute the 2 weeks’ notice the tenant gave her at the time. [The landlord/s] said she had not been aware until the hearing that her mother, [The landlord's mother], had agreed with the tenant that 2 weeks’ notice was fine.
Section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 28 days’ notice. There can be a shorter period of notice if both parties consent to this.
Subsection 51(3) RTA provides that a notice to terminate a tenancy shall be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises and be signed by the party giving the notice.
Subsection 51(4) RTA provides that no special form of words shall be required in a notice to terminate and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non- compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interest of the recipient.
I find here that the tenant provided notice to terminate the tenancy in her text dated 30 October 2022 of 2 weeks to the landlord and to [The landlord's mother], often acting as agent for the landlord. I find further that the tenant understood [The landlord's mother] to be acting as the landlord’s agent, as she had most of her communication about the tenancy with [The landlord's mother], based on the evidence at the hearing. As such, when [The landlord's mother] told the tenant that 2 weeks’ notice was fine by return text, and this was not contradicted by [The landlord/s], I find the tenant was then entitled to rely on [The landlord's mother]’s advice that 2 weeks’ notice was fine. This is further supported by the property being listed for sale at the time and evidence of the landlord’s desire to have work completed on the property before any open homes, which likely would have been easier without the tenant remaining at the property. I calculate that two weeks’ notice from 30 October 2022 would mean the tenancy would end on Sunday 13 November 2022.
The landlord said that the tenant owed 3 weeks’ rent when she left the property, from 31 October 2022 to 20 November 2022 @ $600.00/week for a total of $1,800.00. The parties agreed that the tenant had paid some money for rent in advance, but the amount of rent paid in advance was disputed. [The landlord/s] said there was one week’s rent of $600.00 paid by the tenant in advance at the start of the tenancy. Ms Teague believed she had paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance, which she thought would be then applied to any rent for her 2 weeks’ notice given.
[The landlord/s] did not provide a rent summary for the period of the tenancy so there was no clear evidence of rent payments made by the tenant or the dates of these, either at the start or the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I find that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their rent arrears claim and so this claim is dismissed.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal and gardening
The landlord said the tenant left rubbish at the property and did not weed the garden or mow the lawns, as set out in the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord claimed for 7.5 hours of work @ $35.00/hour for a total of $262.50, exclusive of GST, for rubbish removal and gardening.
The tenant denied that any rubbish was left by them at the property when they left. She said she was told by the landlord when she was still living at the property that a handyman who lived opposite, [Redacted], would be coming to the property to do landscaping, lawns and washing the driveway in the next couple of days whilst she was at work. As the property was being listed and the real estate agent was to take photographs of the property to market it, the tenant believed this work was being done to make the property look good for the marketing for sale. She said they were never provided an opportunity to weed the garden, mow the lawns or wash the driveway at the time. The landlord confirmed she had not specifically asked the tenant to do these things but assumed they should be doing this regularly anyway, as per the Tenancy Agreement.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of any rubbish or of the condition of the lawns or garden. Further, the rubbish removal and gardening work claimed was completed between 27 October 2022 and 3 November 2022, as per the invoice submitted by the landlord, which was still within the tenancy period and not at the end of the tenancy. Cleaning
The landlord said further that there was soot left on the ceilings and walls at the property, fly droppings on the ceiling and some food on the kitchen splashback. The landlord stated they had to retain a cleaner to try to clean off the soot, clean the fly droppings and food from the splashback, but the cleaner told them this was unsuccessful. The landlord claimed $180.00 for the cost of the cleaner and provided a letter from a cleaner saying she had been paid $180.00 by the landlord for cleaning. The landlord maintained that, after the cleaner was unsuccessful in removing soot from the interior of the property, she had to retain a painter to address this issue, which is dealt with below. The landlord said that she could not recall the date the cleaner did work at the property but said it was before the painter was there, and the painter had been there on 11 November 2023. This means the cleaner was also cleaning at the property before the tenancy had officially ended.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes 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.
The tenant said there had been soot on the lounge ceiling and walls but disputed there was soot elsewhere in the property. She claimed the soot resulted from the lack of a fireplace handle, which meant the fireplace door could not be closed fully and some smoke then escaped from the fireplace. She thought this was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the broken fireplace handle. Ms Teague said she agreed to paint the lounge ceiling and walls, engaged a professional painter to do this and paid him $400.00 in cash. Ms Teague claimed compensation from the landlord for the $400.00 she paid her painter. She did not provide any invoice from her painter for these services claimed. The tenant said further that they had cleaned for at least two days before they left the property and considered it was left reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs provided by the landlord of the condition of the walls at the property were somewhat unclear. The tenant said many of the photographs were taken before she had the lounge repainted and thought the dark patches on walls in the kitchen in some photographs were because the photographs were not taken in good, clear light.
As the tenancy had not ended at the time for which these services are claimed, nor was the tenant provided the opportunity of doing these services herself, I find the landlord has not proved it likely that the tenant did not comply with her obligations to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the claims for cleaning and for rubbish removal and gardening are dismissed

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 caused during the tenancy: Bedroom door a. The landlord said the tenant had put a hole in the main bedroom door. The tenant admitted they made a hole in the bedroom door when moving furniture. She agreed to pay for this door to be replaced at the cost claimed by the landlord of $164.00, even though the landlord did not provide a receipt or invoice for the replacement cost of the door. Given this agreement between the parties, I do not depreciate the replacement cost of the door and award $164.00, by consent of the parties, to the landlord to replace the bedroom door. Bathroom vanity b. The landlord said the bathroom vanity had black blotches/stains that could not be removed so the vanity had to be replaced at a cost of $168.00. No receipt or invoice was provided for this. The landlord said the vanity had been new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said the marks could be considered reasonable wear and tear. The photograph of the sink in the vanity provided by the landlord showed several smaller black blotches or stains, which I consider to be more than fair wear and tear and find to be likely careless damage on the part of the tenant. However, as the landlord did not prove the cost of replacing the vanity with any receipts, invoices or other such evidence, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the amount of this claim. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Painting walls and ceilings c. The landlord claimed there was soot on the ceilings and walls throughout the interior of the property from the tenant’s use of the fireplace. The landlord said she was not notified by the tenant of any problem with the fireplace handle and that a previous tenant at the property had not created any soot from the use of the same fireplace. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that the tenant had repainted the lounge ceiling and walls, and that the tenant had contacted her to obtain the name of the correct paint, she maintained the job was not done properly, as gloss paint was used and it was left shiny, and the soot could still be seen through the new paint. d. The tenant said she had told [The landlord's mother] of the issue with the fireplace handle but [The landlord's mother] denied she was told this. The tenant confirmed she had not told the landlord directly about this issue, when tenants are obliged to notify landlords of such issues requiring repair, and did not follow up when the fireplace handle was not fixed, as she got busy. The landlord provided photographs of the soot. Whilst some of these photographs were unclear, I find it more likely than not from the darker patches in the photographs of the lounge and kitchen, that there was soot in areas of the house other than the lounge. Based on the evidence outlined above, I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. This limits the liability of the tenant to the insurance excess here, which is $1,100.00, as per the Tenancy Agreement. e. 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. f. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were last painted around May 2021 before the tenant moved in. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life span of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the painting cost claimed by the landlord of $528.18 that I find reasonable to repaint the walls and ceilings, by 15% for depreciation to an award of $448.96 for the painting. As this is less than the insurance excess, I award the landlord $448.96 for the painting. g. Given my finding of careless damage on the part of the tenant, where the soot in the lounge that the tenant had painted over had to be repainted as it was not done properly, I do not award the tenant the claimed cost of $400.00 for her painting in the lounge. I note there was no invoice provided as to this painting work or cost in any event so the tenant could not have proved the amount of her claim. Therefore, the tenant’s cross-application claim for compensation is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for refund of the bond is dealt with below.
The amounts ordered are proved. Using the premises for unlawful purpose
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating marijuana or cannabis on the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to cultivate a prohibited plant pursuant to section 9 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, unless there is a licence to do so.
The landlord said she visited the property to do an inspection, saw a grow tent in the sleep out and smelled cannabis strongly. She provided statements from her real estate agent, and her handyman, both saying they had smelled cannabis near the sleep out. The landlord said she did not look under the grow tent, nor did she take any photographs of it or discuss her concerns with the tenant after her inspection, as she said she felt uncomfortable about it.
The tenant confirmed she had a grow tent in the sleep out as she grew cacti in it. She said she had been pregnant at the time and never would have considered either using or growing cannabis or marijuana. She acknowledged that another person who lived at the property did occasionally smoke cannabis outside the property only though and thought that could have accounted for the smell.
Based on the evidence outlined above, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant was likely cultivating cannabis or marijuana at the property during the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The landlord said she accidentally lodged $2,400.00 with the Bond Centre at the start of the tenancy, which included the bond agreed in the Tenancy Agreement of $1,800.00, plus one week’s rent of $600.00. The tenant agreed that the bond was $1,800.00 only and that the other $600.00 was to be applied by the landlord to rent. Given this, I consider the bond that is in dispute to total $1,800.00. As such, $600.00 can be returned to the landlord as that will have been applied to rent by the landlord, by agreement between the parties, early in the tenancy, before considering the remaining bond of $1,800.00.
As I have awarded the landlord $612.96 for their claims, I order that the tenant is to pay $612.96 from the bond of $1,800.00 and that the balance of $1,187.04 of the bond of $1,800.00 is to be returned to the tenant.
Therefore, from the official bond lodged of $2,400.00, the landlord is to be paid $1,212.96, which includes the total award of $612.96 plus the $600.00 rent payment lodged by the landlord in error, and the tenant is to be paid $1,187.04.
Because both parties have had success with their claims, I do not reimburse the filing fee to either party.
During the hearing, the landlord requested suppression. The tenant did not request suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, she is entitled to suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

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 4693639 — net $612.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace door	$164.00	Replace door
Painting walls and ceilings	$448.96	Painting walls and ceilings
Net award	$612.96
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$612.96

Claims and awards for application 4693639 — net $612.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace door

Amount: $164.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace door

Painting walls and ceilings

Amount: $448.96
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting walls and ceilings

Net award

Landlord $612.96

Bond

Landlord $2,400.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $612.96

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Painting walls and ceilings c. The landlord claimed there was soot on the ceilings and walls throughout the interior of the property from the tenant’s use of t…
Rent Arrears — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Courtney Teague is to pay [The landlord/s] $612.96 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,212.96 Courtney Teague: $1,187.04

Reasons

[The landlord/s], and her mother, [The landlord’s mother], as her support person attended the hearing, as did the tenant, Ms Teague, and her mother, also Ms Teague, as her support person. As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that [The landlord’s mother] would need to provide evidence and so she left the hearing room part way through the hearing, only returning later to provide her evidence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, remedy of breach, using the premises for unlawful purpose, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties did not agree on the date the tenancy ended. Both parties acknowledged that the property was put on the market for sale, that Ms Teague eventually texted [The landlord/s] on 30 October 2022 that they would be moving out 2 weeks from then and that the tenant considered she vacated the property on 10 November 2022.
[The landlord/s] did not accept that the tenant texting her notice that she was moving out was sufficient notice to end the tenancy, as she said it did not meet the formalities required to do so.
Ms Teague said she felt harassed by [The landlord/s], [The landlord's mother] and the real estate agent who all messaged her continually, and that [The landlord's mother] and the real estate agent also came to her workplace a number of times. Ms Teague said this created a lot of stress for her, on top of the property being listed for sale, the demands of her to have the property made ready for sales marketing photographs and open homes, and the fact she was pregnant at the time. She said eventually she could not take anymore and gave notice that they were moving out. She maintained that during the whole tenancy, she mainly dealt with [The landlord's mother], who acted as [The landlord/s] agent, and that she only met [The landlord/s] once. Ms Teague said she texted both [The landlord/s] and [The landlord's mother] giving notice on 30 October 2022 that they would be moving out in 2 weeks, and that [The landlord's mother] texted back to her that 2 weeks to move out was fine. Ms Teague said [The landlord's mother] told her that 2 weeks notice would work well for the landlord, as they needed to have work done on the property before the open homes began. Ms Teague said she did not hear back from [The landlord/s] to contradict her 2 weeks’ notice. As a result, she believed the landlord was happy for her to move out as of 10 November 2022.
[The landlord's mother] confirmed that she told Ms Teague that 2 weeks to move out was fine and also confirmed she had essentially acted as agent for her daughter, [The landlord/s], as her daughter had just had a baby and had health issues so she did not want to cause her stress or worry. [The landlord/s] also confirmed she had not gone back to the tenant directly to dispute the 2 weeks’ notice the tenant gave her at the time. [The landlord/s] said she had not been aware until the hearing that her mother, [The landlord's mother], had agreed with the tenant that 2 weeks’ notice was fine.
Section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 28 days’ notice. There can be a shorter period of notice if both parties consent to this.
Subsection 51(3) RTA provides that a notice to terminate a tenancy shall be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises and be signed by the party giving the notice.
Subsection 51(4) RTA provides that no special form of words shall be required in a notice to terminate and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non- compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interest of the recipient.
I find here that the tenant provided notice to terminate the tenancy in her text dated 30 October 2022 of 2 weeks to the landlord and to [The landlord's mother], often acting as agent for the landlord. I find further that the tenant understood [The landlord's mother] to be acting as the landlord’s agent, as she had most of her communication about the tenancy with [The landlord's mother], based on the evidence at the hearing. As such, when [The landlord's mother] told the tenant that 2 weeks’ notice was fine by return text, and this was not contradicted by [The landlord/s], I find the tenant was then entitled to rely on [The landlord's mother]’s advice that 2 weeks’ notice was fine. This is further supported by the property being listed for sale at the time and evidence of the landlord’s desire to have work completed on the property before any open homes, which likely would have been easier without the tenant remaining at the property. I calculate that two weeks’ notice from 30 October 2022 would mean the tenancy would end on Sunday 13 November 2022.
The landlord said that the tenant owed 3 weeks’ rent when she left the property, from 31 October 2022 to 20 November 2022 @ $600.00/week for a total of $1,800.00. The parties agreed that the tenant had paid some money for rent in advance, but the amount of rent paid in advance was disputed. [The landlord/s] said there was one week’s rent of $600.00 paid by the tenant in advance at the start of the tenancy. Ms Teague believed she had paid 2 weeks’ rent in advance, which she thought would be then applied to any rent for her 2 weeks’ notice given.
[The landlord/s] did not provide a rent summary for the period of the tenancy so there was no clear evidence of rent payments made by the tenant or the dates of these, either at the start or the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I find that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their rent arrears claim and so this claim is dismissed.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal and gardening
The landlord said the tenant left rubbish at the property and did not weed the garden or mow the lawns, as set out in the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord claimed for 7.5 hours of work @ $35.00/hour for a total of $262.50, exclusive of GST, for rubbish removal and gardening.
The tenant denied that any rubbish was left by them at the property when they left. She said she was told by the landlord when she was still living at the property that a handyman who lived opposite, [Redacted], would be coming to the property to do landscaping, lawns and washing the driveway in the next couple of days whilst she was at work. As the property was being listed and the real estate agent was to take photographs of the property to market it, the tenant believed this work was being done to make the property look good for the marketing for sale. She said they were never provided an opportunity to weed the garden, mow the lawns or wash the driveway at the time. The landlord confirmed she had not specifically asked the tenant to do these things but assumed they should be doing this regularly anyway, as per the Tenancy Agreement.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of any rubbish or of the condition of the lawns or garden. Further, the rubbish removal and gardening work claimed was completed between 27 October 2022 and 3 November 2022, as per the invoice submitted by the landlord, which was still within the tenancy period and not at the end of the tenancy. Cleaning
The landlord said further that there was soot left on the ceilings and walls at the property, fly droppings on the ceiling and some food on the kitchen splashback. The landlord stated they had to retain a cleaner to try to clean off the soot, clean the fly droppings and food from the splashback, but the cleaner told them this was unsuccessful. The landlord claimed $180.00 for the cost of the cleaner and provided a letter from a cleaner saying she had been paid $180.00 by the landlord for cleaning. The landlord maintained that, after the cleaner was unsuccessful in removing soot from the interior of the property, she had to retain a painter to address this issue, which is dealt with below. The landlord said that she could not recall the date the cleaner did work at the property but said it was before the painter was there, and the painter had been there on 11 November 2023. This means the cleaner was also cleaning at the property before the tenancy had officially ended.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes 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.
The tenant said there had been soot on the lounge ceiling and walls but disputed there was soot elsewhere in the property. She claimed the soot resulted from the lack of a fireplace handle, which meant the fireplace door could not be closed fully and some smoke then escaped from the fireplace. She thought this was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the broken fireplace handle. Ms Teague said she agreed to paint the lounge ceiling and walls, engaged a professional painter to do this and paid him $400.00 in cash. Ms Teague claimed compensation from the landlord for the $400.00 she paid her painter. She did not provide any invoice from her painter for these services claimed. The tenant said further that they had cleaned for at least two days before they left the property and considered it was left reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs provided by the landlord of the condition of the walls at the property were somewhat unclear. The tenant said many of the photographs were taken before she had the lounge repainted and thought the dark patches on walls in the kitchen in some photographs were because the photographs were not taken in good, clear light.
As the tenancy had not ended at the time for which these services are claimed, nor was the tenant provided the opportunity of doing these services herself, I find the landlord has not proved it likely that the tenant did not comply with her obligations to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the claims for cleaning and for rubbish removal and gardening are dismissed

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 caused during the tenancy: Bedroom door a. The landlord said the tenant had put a hole in the main bedroom door. The tenant admitted they made a hole in the bedroom door when moving furniture. She agreed to pay for this door to be replaced at the cost claimed by the landlord of $164.00, even though the landlord did not provide a receipt or invoice for the replacement cost of the door. Given this agreement between the parties, I do not depreciate the replacement cost of the door and award $164.00, by consent of the parties, to the landlord to replace the bedroom door. Bathroom vanity b. The landlord said the bathroom vanity had black blotches/stains that could not be removed so the vanity had to be replaced at a cost of $168.00. No receipt or invoice was provided for this. The landlord said the vanity had been new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said the marks could be considered reasonable wear and tear. The photograph of the sink in the vanity provided by the landlord showed several smaller black blotches or stains, which I consider to be more than fair wear and tear and find to be likely careless damage on the part of the tenant. However, as the landlord did not prove the cost of replacing the vanity with any receipts, invoices or other such evidence, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the amount of this claim. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Painting walls and ceilings c. The landlord claimed there was soot on the ceilings and walls throughout the interior of the property from the tenant’s use of the fireplace. The landlord said she was not notified by the tenant of any problem with the fireplace handle and that a previous tenant at the property had not created any soot from the use of the same fireplace. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that the tenant had repainted the lounge ceiling and walls, and that the tenant had contacted her to obtain the name of the correct paint, she maintained the job was not done properly, as gloss paint was used and it was left shiny, and the soot could still be seen through the new paint. d. The tenant said she had told [The landlord's mother] of the issue with the fireplace handle but [The landlord's mother] denied she was told this. The tenant confirmed she had not told the landlord directly about this issue, when tenants are obliged to notify landlords of such issues requiring repair, and did not follow up when the fireplace handle was not fixed, as she got busy. The landlord provided photographs of the soot. Whilst some of these photographs were unclear, I find it more likely than not from the darker patches in the photographs of the lounge and kitchen, that there was soot in areas of the house other than the lounge. Based on the evidence outlined above, I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. This limits the liability of the tenant to the insurance excess here, which is $1,100.00, as per the Tenancy Agreement. e. 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. f. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were last painted around May 2021 before the tenant moved in. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life span of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the painting cost claimed by the landlord of $528.18 that I find reasonable to repaint the walls and ceilings, by 15% for depreciation to an award of $448.96 for the painting. As this is less than the insurance excess, I award the landlord $448.96 for the painting. g. Given my finding of careless damage on the part of the tenant, where the soot in the lounge that the tenant had painted over had to be repainted as it was not done properly, I do not award the tenant the claimed cost of $400.00 for her painting in the lounge. I note there was no invoice provided as to this painting work or cost in any event so the tenant could not have proved the amount of her claim. Therefore, the tenant’s cross-application claim for compensation is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for refund of the bond is dealt with below.
The amounts ordered are proved. Using the premises for unlawful purpose
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating marijuana or cannabis on the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to cultivate a prohibited plant pursuant to section 9 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, unless there is a licence to do so.
The landlord said she visited the property to do an inspection, saw a grow tent in the sleep out and smelled cannabis strongly. She provided statements from her real estate agent, and her handyman, both saying they had smelled cannabis near the sleep out. The landlord said she did not look under the grow tent, nor did she take any photographs of it or discuss her concerns with the tenant after her inspection, as she said she felt uncomfortable about it.
The tenant confirmed she had a grow tent in the sleep out as she grew cacti in it. She said she had been pregnant at the time and never would have considered either using or growing cannabis or marijuana. She acknowledged that another person who lived at the property did occasionally smoke cannabis outside the property only though and thought that could have accounted for the smell.
Based on the evidence outlined above, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant was likely cultivating cannabis or marijuana at the property during the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The landlord said she accidentally lodged $2,400.00 with the Bond Centre at the start of the tenancy, which included the bond agreed in the Tenancy Agreement of $1,800.00, plus one week’s rent of $600.00. The tenant agreed that the bond was $1,800.00 only and that the other $600.00 was to be applied by the landlord to rent. Given this, I consider the bond that is in dispute to total $1,800.00. As such, $600.00 can be returned to the landlord as that will have been applied to rent by the landlord, by agreement between the parties, early in the tenancy, before considering the remaining bond of $1,800.00.
As I have awarded the landlord $612.96 for their claims, I order that the tenant is to pay $612.96 from the bond of $1,800.00 and that the balance of $1,187.04 of the bond of $1,800.00 is to be returned to the tenant.
Therefore, from the official bond lodged of $2,400.00, the landlord is to be paid $1,212.96, which includes the total award of $612.96 plus the $600.00 rent payment lodged by the landlord in error, and the tenant is to be paid $1,187.04.
Because both parties have had success with their claims, I do not reimburse the filing fee to either party.
During the hearing, the landlord requested suppression. The tenant did not request suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, she is entitled to suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693639 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Walsh Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693639 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Walsh Street, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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