What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722612?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $789.94 (5069707-004) to Client First

How much money was awarded in case 4722612?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Stick Ons: $275.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722612?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10683137-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722612?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $789.94 (5069707-004) to Client First

How much money was awarded in case 4722612?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Stick Ons: $275.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722612?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10683137-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Gendo Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4722612 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722612. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Repairs: stick ons	$275.00	Repairs: stick ons
Carpet Cleaning	$322.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $789.94 (5069707-004) to Client First Property Management Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.06 (5069707-004) to Ashvyn Prakash and Taroon Radhika immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 29 October 2015 and ended on 19 September 2023.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy further general cleaning was required to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord produced photographs that show an area of the bathroom with hairs on the floor, a shower door with dirty glass, a shower fitting with a bloody mark and several other photos of similar areas. In my view, these are mostly isolated areas that generally wouldn’t negate the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. Even after a premises is left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, a landlord may be expected to conduct a deeper clean before the next tenant moves in.
The landlord also claims that a kitchen film that the tenant had applied to and then removed from the kitchen cabinetry and splashback left a sticky residue that took extra cleaning.
The landlord produced an invoice for $345.00 and photographs in support of the claim.
The tenant stated that notwithstanding the photographs provided by the landlord, he believed the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy, including the removal of the sticky residue from the kitchen cabinetry.
In this instance I accept that cumulatively the areas the landlord has drawn attention to amount to the overall premises being slightly less than reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
I find the claim proved in part and I make an order for 50% of the claim.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord produced photographs that show the carpet from the end of the tenancy to be stained, and an invoice for $322.00.
The landlord drew attention to an agreement between the tenant and the landlord allowing the tenant to have a pet on certain conditions including that the carpet be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also drew attention to a clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to have the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that one rent increase was justified partially on the basis of the tenant being allowed to have a pet, and that he only had the pet for six months in total. He questioned why he should have to pay for cleaning the carpet if he had already paid extra rent for the privilege of having a pet.
A tenant is not obligated to perform conditions contained in a tenancy agreement that are inconsistent or exceed their obligations contained in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. A tenant’s obligation regarding the carpet of a premises is the same as for the rest of the premises; they are to leave it reasonably clean and tidy, see RTA, section 40.
Putting aside the clause contained in the tenancy agreement regarding the carpet being professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, and the similar condition as it related to having a pet, the photographs show the carpet to be quite dirty and stained. I make an award for the cleaning of the carpet on the basis that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The amount is 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.
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 claims that at during the tenancy the tenant caused damage by putting stickers on the walls in two bedrooms. When these were removed at the end of the tenancy they caused the paint to be pulled from the walls. As a result the walls had to be re-skimmed, then sealed and painted. The landlord produced an invoice for $652.98 for these repairs.
The tenant replied that the tenancy lasted eight years and the rooms were in need of painting anyway.
I accept the tenant’s views regarding the painting of the rooms but not the repairs. I therefore make a reduced award for the repairs but not the painting of the rooms. I find the damage to be intentional damage. The amount awarded is an estimate as no breakdown of costs was provided by the landlord.
The amount is proved.
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.
The tenant wished to renegotiate an award made at mediation on the basis that he had been unaware of the law when he attended mediation; the landlord did not wish to renegotiate the award.
Because I am not aware of any power that the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 gives me to open up an agreed and sealed award made at mediation, I declined to do so.
Because Client First Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722612. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Repairs: stick ons	$275.00	Repairs: stick ons
Carpet Cleaning	$322.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $789.94 (5069707-004) to Client First Property Management Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.06 (5069707-004) to Ashvyn Prakash and Taroon Radhika immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 29 October 2015 and ended on 19 September 2023.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy further general cleaning was required to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord produced photographs that show an area of the bathroom with hairs on the floor, a shower door with dirty glass, a shower fitting with a bloody mark and several other photos of similar areas. In my view, these are mostly isolated areas that generally wouldn’t negate the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. Even after a premises is left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, a landlord may be expected to conduct a deeper clean before the next tenant moves in.
The landlord also claims that a kitchen film that the tenant had applied to and then removed from the kitchen cabinetry and splashback left a sticky residue that took extra cleaning.
The landlord produced an invoice for $345.00 and photographs in support of the claim.
The tenant stated that notwithstanding the photographs provided by the landlord, he believed the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy, including the removal of the sticky residue from the kitchen cabinetry.
In this instance I accept that cumulatively the areas the landlord has drawn attention to amount to the overall premises being slightly less than reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
I find the claim proved in part and I make an order for 50% of the claim.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord produced photographs that show the carpet from the end of the tenancy to be stained, and an invoice for $322.00.
The landlord drew attention to an agreement between the tenant and the landlord allowing the tenant to have a pet on certain conditions including that the carpet be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also drew attention to a clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to have the carpet professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that one rent increase was justified partially on the basis of the tenant being allowed to have a pet, and that he only had the pet for six months in total. He questioned why he should have to pay for cleaning the carpet if he had already paid extra rent for the privilege of having a pet.
A tenant is not obligated to perform conditions contained in a tenancy agreement that are inconsistent or exceed their obligations contained in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. A tenant’s obligation regarding the carpet of a premises is the same as for the rest of the premises; they are to leave it reasonably clean and tidy, see RTA, section 40.
Putting aside the clause contained in the tenancy agreement regarding the carpet being professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, and the similar condition as it related to having a pet, the photographs show the carpet to be quite dirty and stained. I make an award for the cleaning of the carpet on the basis that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The amount is 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.
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 claims that at during the tenancy the tenant caused damage by putting stickers on the walls in two bedrooms. When these were removed at the end of the tenancy they caused the paint to be pulled from the walls. As a result the walls had to be re-skimmed, then sealed and painted. The landlord produced an invoice for $652.98 for these repairs.
The tenant replied that the tenancy lasted eight years and the rooms were in need of painting anyway.
I accept the tenant’s views regarding the painting of the rooms but not the repairs. I therefore make a reduced award for the repairs but not the painting of the rooms. I find the damage to be intentional damage. The amount awarded is an estimate as no breakdown of costs was provided by the landlord.
The amount is proved.
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.
The tenant wished to renegotiate an award made at mediation on the basis that he had been unaware of the law when he attended mediation; the landlord did not wish to renegotiate the award.
Because I am not aware of any power that the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 gives me to open up an agreed and sealed award made at mediation, I declined to do so.
Because Client First Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722612 — Cleanliness at 24 Gendo Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722612 — Cleanliness at 24 Gendo Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions