What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4721052?

The tribunal order states: Bradden Carmody and Tashe Deshay Carmichael must pay Laurie George Muir

How much money was awarded in case 4721052?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Nets and Curtai…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Remote Control: $80.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721052?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10356416-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4721052?

The tribunal order states: Bradden Carmody and Tashe Deshay Carmichael must pay Laurie George Muir

How much money was awarded in case 4721052?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Nets and Curtai…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Remote Control: $80.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721052?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10356416-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Valentine Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4721052 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721052 — net $697.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement/ repair	$368.00	Carpet replacement/ repair
Replace furnishings: remote control	$80.49	Replace furnishings: remote control
Cleaning	$550.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Nets and Curtains	$250.00	Replace furnishings: Nets and Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$697.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$697.93

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person the tenants attended by phone.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, damage to the alarm, damage to the curtains and drapes, missing air conditioner remote and carpet repair, 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?

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants accepted that they had smoked in the tenancy despite smoking being prohibited in the tenancy agreement. The tenants accept that they continued to smoke even when the landlord told them not to.

As a result of the tenants having to leave the tenancy quickly and because of the cigarette smell, the landlord had to clean the property at the end of the tenancy. The quote and invoice for the cleaning describes the clean as a ‘deep clean’. A deep clean is not the standard that a tenant is required to leave the property in. The tenant is only required to leave the property in a reasonable clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal considers cleaning costs on a daily basis. I consider the sum of $550.00 an appropriate amount to compensate the landlord for remedying the tenant’s breach and to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

The landlord also claimed that the tenant did not leave the remote control behind, and he had to replace it. The tenant says that they did. I prefer the evidence of the landlord and award the landlord the replacement cost of the remote control $80.49.

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 caused during the tenancy: a stain in the bedroom carpet from hair dye, broken alarm, damaged net curtains and curtains/drapes in lounge from cigarette smoke. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant say that the net curtains were installed by them, but the landlord says that they were there at the beginning, and they are recorded in the tenancy agreement.

Whilst I have found that the alarm 1 was damaged during the tenancy, it has outlasted its depreciable life by a considerable period and therefore no award has been made in respect of the alarm.

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.

Because Laurie George Muir has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 1 See IR265 Depreciation rates for residential tenancies (page 36) the lifespan of an alarm is 6.66 years.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721052 — net $697.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement/ repair	$368.00	Carpet replacement/ repair
Replace furnishings: remote control	$80.49	Replace furnishings: remote control
Cleaning	$550.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Nets and Curtains	$250.00	Replace furnishings: Nets and Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$697.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$697.93

Order

Bradden Carmody and Tashe Deshay Carmichael must pay Laurie George Muir $697.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $571.00 (3203108-020) to Laurie George Muir immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person the tenants attended by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, damage to the alarm, damage to the curtains and drapes, missing air conditioner remote and carpet repair, 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?

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants accepted that they had smoked in the tenancy despite smoking being prohibited in the tenancy agreement. The tenants accept that they continued to smoke even when the landlord told them not to.
As a result of the tenants having to leave the tenancy quickly and because of the cigarette smell, the landlord had to clean the property at the end of the tenancy. The quote and invoice for the cleaning describes the clean as a ‘deep clean’. A deep clean is not the standard that a tenant is required to leave the property in. The tenant is only required to leave the property in a reasonable clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal considers cleaning costs on a daily basis. I consider the sum of $550.00 an appropriate amount to compensate the landlord for remedying the tenant’s breach and to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord also claimed that the tenant did not leave the remote control behind, and he had to replace it. The tenant says that they did. I prefer the evidence of the landlord and award the landlord the replacement cost of the remote control $80.49.
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 caused during the tenancy: a stain in the bedroom carpet from hair dye, broken alarm, damaged net curtains and curtains/drapes in lounge from cigarette smoke. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant say that the net curtains were installed by them, but the landlord says that they were there at the beginning, and they are recorded in the tenancy agreement.
Whilst I have found that the alarm 1 was damaged during the tenancy, it has outlasted its depreciable life by a considerable period and therefore no award has been made in respect of the alarm.
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.
Because Laurie George Muir has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 1 See IR265 Depreciation rates for residential tenancies (page 36) the lifespan of an alarm is 6.66 years.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721052 — Cleanliness at 15 Valentine Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721052 — Cleanliness at 15 Valentine Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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