How much money was awarded in case 4712892?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $119.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $769.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712892?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10104186-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4712892?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $119.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $769.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712892?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10104186-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4712892 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4712892 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4712892 — net $75.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	12. The landlord claims $119.99 for the cleaning of the oven.
Rubbish removal	$769.90	Rubbish removal
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$105.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Oven/stove cleaning	$119.99	12. The landlord claims $119.99 for the cleaning of the oven.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	2022. The landlord says she arranged for an electrician to visit and then had the power box rewired.
Net award	$75.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.33

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The landlord’s claims for carpet cleaning, lock barrel replacement and toilet seat replacement are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Bridgette Elizabeth Darvill-Jackson must pay [The landlord/s] $75.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearings proceeded in her absence. The first hearing dealt with the substantive claims. A second short hearing was necessary for the landlord to confirm a discrepancy in the name of the applicant and the name on the tenancy agreement.

The landlord named on the tenancy agreement is the Public Trust. This is different to the applicant in this case. However, the landlord provided evidence which satisfied me that the correct landlord (and therefore correct applicant) is [The landlord/s]. The naming of the Public Trust on the tenancy agreement was an administrative error. They have never been the landlord of this tenancy.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenancy ended on 18 August 2023 following a notice given by the landlord that it was intending to sell the property.

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 (RTA).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

However, the RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. 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, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances.

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.

There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.

The property is a 2-bedroom unit that is reasonably small.

The landlord claims $119.99 for the cleaning of the oven. The evidence provided established that the oven was far from reasonably clean and the amount claimed reasonable. This amount ordered is proven.

The landlord claims nearly $400 for overall cleaning inside the property. While I consider the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy I consider the amount to be sought to be excessive given the size of the property. I consider that the time taken would have taken the property to a standard beyond that which the tenant was required to return the property. I have awarded the sum of $300 which I consider to be reasonable to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord claims carpet cleaning costs. The landlord says they were grimy, but the photographs presented as evidence are not clear enough to support this. I am not satisfied that the photographs support a need to clean the carpets beyond vacuuming. I make no award in relation to carpet cleaning.

The landlord seeks $769.90 for rubbish removal and disposal costs. I have seen photos and the amounts claimed seem reasonable to me. The tenant left a large number of items including larger items like a couch, mattress, chairs, tyres and pallets. This is why the rubbish claim is so high. The amount ordered is proven.

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 landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to toilet seat so it needed to be replaced b. Removal of barrel of lock c. Power box – diverting of power

My decision in relation to the damage is as follows: a. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven its claim in relation to the toilet seat. In the absence of more detailed evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the damage was not fair wear and tear. A toilet seat is an item designed for frequent use. There was insufficient evidence about the state of the toilet seat at the start of the tenancy or the nature of the damage. I dismiss this part of the claim. b. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven its claim in relation to the barrel it says is missing. The landlord says she noticed it missing on an inspection but there was no probative evidence of this available to the Tribunal. There was also no evidence about the existence and condition of the lock at the start of the tenancy, its age or any probative evidence showing the lock being missing at the end of the tenancy or the precise nature of the repair that needed to be done. I therefore dismiss this part of the claim. c. The landlord says she discovered that the power box had been interfered with on an inspection in July 2022. The landlord says she arranged for an electrician to visit and then had the power box rewired. An electrician’s invoice provided supports this as it gives a brief explanation of the position. The landlord’s evidence is that it contacted the power provider at the same time as discovering this and say that the power company thought that the property was not being lived in as there had been no power there for over 6 months. The landlord says that when she asked the tenant about this, she admitted that her boyfriend had tampered with the power box. I find, on the basis of the landlord’s oral evidence relating to the explanation given by the tenant, and the information reported by the power company, that the damage more likely than not occurred during the course of the tenancy. It is not fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. I do not consider this to be an appropriate case for applying depreciation as the electrician only restored the power box. The sum ordered is proven. Filing fee and suppression

The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award the filing fee.

The landlord requested name suppression and I award this as the landlord has been substantially successful (s95A, RTA).

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4712892 — net $75.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	12. The landlord claims $119.99 for the cleaning of the oven.
Rubbish removal	$769.90	Rubbish removal
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$105.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Oven/stove cleaning	$119.99	12. The landlord claims $119.99 for the cleaning of the oven.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	2022. The landlord says she arranged for an electrician to visit and then had the power box rewired.
Net award	$75.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.33

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The landlord’s claims for carpet cleaning, lock barrel replacement and toilet seat replacement are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Bridgette Elizabeth Darvill-Jackson must pay [The landlord/s] $75.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenancy ended on 18 August 2023 following a notice given by the landlord that it was intending to sell the property.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

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 property is a 2-bedroom unit that is reasonably small.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to toilet seat so it needed to be replaced b. Removal of barrel of lock c. Power box – diverting of power

The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award the filing fee.

The landlord requested name suppression and I award this as the landlord has been substantially successful (s95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712892 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712892 — 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