What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713689 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4713689?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Other – Window Tint: $295.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713689?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713689 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4713689?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Other – Window Tint: $295.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713689?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11A Watea Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713689 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713689 — net $1,165.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
garage door remotes	$180.00	garage door remotes
Other – window tint	$295.73	Other – window tint
Net award	$1,165.73
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,165.73

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Farzeen Ali $1,165.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Farzeen Ali: $1,165.73 [The tenant/s]: $2,234.27

Reasons

Both parties 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.
The tenants sought refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy commenced on 27 August 2022, and terminated on 26 August 2023 following the landlord giving a 90-day notice to terminate on the basis that “extensive renovations” were required. No details of the proposed renovations were provided to the tenants, or to the Tribunal.
The property was managed by the applicant as agent for the owners. There is some distinction between things done by the applicant and by the owner after the termination, so this decision refers to the applicant as “Crockers” and the owner as the” landlord”.
Crockers acted as agent for the landlord at all times and communicated with the tenants on the landlord’s behalf. The 90-day notice was issued by Crockers on the landlord’s behalf, and it would appear Crockers were not advised on the renovations to be undertaken.
Following termination of the tenancy, Crockers undertook an inspection and provided a list of issues to the tenant, largely relating to cleaning and rubbish removal, together with some damage claims.
Following that inspection, the landlord undertook their own inspection and made a number of additional claims, including carpet damage, a replacement vanity, replacement of the kitchen sink, replacement of the kitchen tap, replacement of curtains, damage to bathroom tiles, further cleaning and rubbish removal, damage to gardens.

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 tenants accept that, due to illness, they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They did ask to return to remedy these issues, but consent for that was denied.
Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs provided, I consider some of the cleaning costs sought are reasonable. I have awarded the cost of cleaning, noted as a “standard clean” on the invoice provided. In assessing this, I am mindful that the tenants must leave the premises reasonably tidy, but also that the tenancy was terminated on the basis that “extensive renovations” and I consider that the standard of cleaning required should reflect that.
The tenant returned all house keys, but did not return the garage door remote, which had been lost. The tenant’s accept liability for this cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was allegedly caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a window tint. b. Damage to net curtains. c. Urine damage to carpet. d. Water damage to a bathroom vanity. e. Damage to the cooktop. f. Damage to paintwork. g. A hole in the wall in the garage. h. Damage to the kitchen sink and tap. i. Damage to tiles in the bathroom. j. Damage to doors. k. Damage to the garden.
In relation to the damage to the window tint, this is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In relation to the damage to the curtains, I am not satisfied that this was all done during the tenancy, or that it is more than fair wear and tear. Even if that was not the case, there is no evidence of the cost to replace the net curtains only, as the quotes provided cover full sets of nets and thermals throughout, rather than breaking it down.
Accordingly, this portion of the claim is dismissed.
In relation to the bathroom vanity, cooktop, paintwork, kitchen sink and tap, and the doors having heard the evidence – noting the absence of information in relation to expect wear, and any special care requirements - and seen the photographs, I am not satisfied that this damage goes beyond fair wear and tear.
Accordingly, this portion of the claim is also dismissed.
In relation to the urine damage to the carpet, while it is acknowledged that the tenants had cats, there is no evidence that the carpet was clean of cat urine at the start of the tenancy. There were no issues with smell during or after the tenancy, and the urine was only detected by specialist treatments undertaken by the owner. That treatment was not done prior to the tenancy. Accordingly, I consider that there is insufficient evidence to conclude the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The portion of the application is dismissed.
In relation to the hole in the wall of the garage, it is accepted that this happened during the tenancy. However, the tenants’ position is that it was caused by tradespeople who were doing work in the garage in the aftermath of flooding during Cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023. There is no evidence to rebut this, and I accept the tenants’ evidence on this point.
In relation to the damage to the garden, again the tenants acknowledge that it likely happened during the tenancy, but they dispute liability on the basis that the tyre damage is beside the shared driveway where the neighbour turns around, and it is likely that the damage was caused by them. Further the initial damage and washing out of the garden beds occurred during the flooding which also affected the garage. Having seen the photos of the damage, photos of the flooding and the pre-tenancy photos, I consider it more likely than not that the majority of the damage to the gardens was caused by the floods, and not actions of the tenant.
These claims are also dismissed.
Finally, in relation to the bathroom tiles, the tenants dispute that there was damage to the tiles. I have before me close up photos of cracked tiles provided by the landlord. Using some markers (i.e., in relation to a smooth portion of wall shown near one of the cracked tiles) I tried to locate these in the post tenancy photos provided by Crockers and was unable to do so. The tenants had no knowledge of the cracked tiles and Crockers was unable to show me where they were.
On this basis, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this claim and it is dismissed.
For completeness, I am disquieted by the absence of evidence from the landlord in person, given the number of significant claims advanced by them personally. The termination of the tenancy on the basis of unidentified extensive renovations is, on the face of it, questionable. There is no obvious damage or issues with the premises requiring remediation. That is then combined with significant claims for damages put forward by the landlords without good evidence to support them, which causes me additional concern.
This is not a criticism of Crockers, who appeared at the hearing on the landlord’s behalf. The evidence was fairly presented without embellishment and with transparency which greatly assisted the Tribunal and was to Ms Paulin’s credit. Further, the claims set out by Crockers in an email to the Tribunal post the final inspection were largely accepted by the tenants or upheld by the Tribunal. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The tenants sought suppression of their names. As they have been substantially successful in their claim/defence they are entitled to suppression.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713689 — net $1,165.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
garage door remotes	$180.00	garage door remotes
Other – window tint	$295.73	Other – window tint
Net award	$1,165.73
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,165.73

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Farzeen Ali $1,165.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Farzeen Ali: $1,165.73 [The tenant/s]: $2,234.27

Reasons

Both parties 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.
The tenants sought refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy commenced on 27 August 2022, and terminated on 26 August 2023 following the landlord giving a 90-day notice to terminate on the basis that “extensive renovations” were required. No details of the proposed renovations were provided to the tenants, or to the Tribunal.
The property was managed by the applicant as agent for the owners. There is some distinction between things done by the applicant and by the owner after the termination, so this decision refers to the applicant as “Crockers” and the owner as the” landlord”.
Crockers acted as agent for the landlord at all times and communicated with the tenants on the landlord’s behalf. The 90-day notice was issued by Crockers on the landlord’s behalf, and it would appear Crockers were not advised on the renovations to be undertaken.
Following termination of the tenancy, Crockers undertook an inspection and provided a list of issues to the tenant, largely relating to cleaning and rubbish removal, together with some damage claims.
Following that inspection, the landlord undertook their own inspection and made a number of additional claims, including carpet damage, a replacement vanity, replacement of the kitchen sink, replacement of the kitchen tap, replacement of curtains, damage to bathroom tiles, further cleaning and rubbish removal, damage to gardens.

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 tenants accept that, due to illness, they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They did ask to return to remedy these issues, but consent for that was denied.
Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs provided, I consider some of the cleaning costs sought are reasonable. I have awarded the cost of cleaning, noted as a “standard clean” on the invoice provided. In assessing this, I am mindful that the tenants must leave the premises reasonably tidy, but also that the tenancy was terminated on the basis that “extensive renovations” and I consider that the standard of cleaning required should reflect that.
The tenant returned all house keys, but did not return the garage door remote, which had been lost. The tenant’s accept liability for this cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was allegedly caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a window tint. b. Damage to net curtains. c. Urine damage to carpet. d. Water damage to a bathroom vanity. e. Damage to the cooktop. f. Damage to paintwork. g. A hole in the wall in the garage. h. Damage to the kitchen sink and tap. i. Damage to tiles in the bathroom. j. Damage to doors. k. Damage to the garden.
In relation to the damage to the window tint, this is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In relation to the damage to the curtains, I am not satisfied that this was all done during the tenancy, or that it is more than fair wear and tear. Even if that was not the case, there is no evidence of the cost to replace the net curtains only, as the quotes provided cover full sets of nets and thermals throughout, rather than breaking it down.
Accordingly, this portion of the claim is dismissed.
In relation to the bathroom vanity, cooktop, paintwork, kitchen sink and tap, and the doors having heard the evidence – noting the absence of information in relation to expect wear, and any special care requirements - and seen the photographs, I am not satisfied that this damage goes beyond fair wear and tear.
Accordingly, this portion of the claim is also dismissed.
In relation to the urine damage to the carpet, while it is acknowledged that the tenants had cats, there is no evidence that the carpet was clean of cat urine at the start of the tenancy. There were no issues with smell during or after the tenancy, and the urine was only detected by specialist treatments undertaken by the owner. That treatment was not done prior to the tenancy. Accordingly, I consider that there is insufficient evidence to conclude the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The portion of the application is dismissed.
In relation to the hole in the wall of the garage, it is accepted that this happened during the tenancy. However, the tenants’ position is that it was caused by tradespeople who were doing work in the garage in the aftermath of flooding during Cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023. There is no evidence to rebut this, and I accept the tenants’ evidence on this point.
In relation to the damage to the garden, again the tenants acknowledge that it likely happened during the tenancy, but they dispute liability on the basis that the tyre damage is beside the shared driveway where the neighbour turns around, and it is likely that the damage was caused by them. Further the initial damage and washing out of the garden beds occurred during the flooding which also affected the garage. Having seen the photos of the damage, photos of the flooding and the pre-tenancy photos, I consider it more likely than not that the majority of the damage to the gardens was caused by the floods, and not actions of the tenant.
These claims are also dismissed.
Finally, in relation to the bathroom tiles, the tenants dispute that there was damage to the tiles. I have before me close up photos of cracked tiles provided by the landlord. Using some markers (i.e., in relation to a smooth portion of wall shown near one of the cracked tiles) I tried to locate these in the post tenancy photos provided by Crockers and was unable to do so. The tenants had no knowledge of the cracked tiles and Crockers was unable to show me where they were.
On this basis, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved this claim and it is dismissed.
For completeness, I am disquieted by the absence of evidence from the landlord in person, given the number of significant claims advanced by them personally. The termination of the tenancy on the basis of unidentified extensive renovations is, on the face of it, questionable. There is no obvious damage or issues with the premises requiring remediation. That is then combined with significant claims for damages put forward by the landlords without good evidence to support them, which causes me additional concern.
This is not a criticism of Crockers, who appeared at the hearing on the landlord’s behalf. The evidence was fairly presented without embellishment and with transparency which greatly assisted the Tribunal and was to Ms Paulin’s credit. Further, the claims set out by Crockers in an email to the Tribunal post the final inspection were largely accepted by the tenants or upheld by the Tribunal. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The tenants sought suppression of their names. As they have been substantially successful in their claim/defence they are entitled to suppression.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713689 — Cleanliness at 11A Watea Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713689 — Cleanliness at 11A Watea Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

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