What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739069 about?

The tribunal order states: Global Property Limited As Agent For Hoong Chong Lau must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4739069?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739069?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10355538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739069 about?

The tribunal order states: Global Property Limited As Agent For Hoong Chong Lau must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4739069?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739069?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10355538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4739069 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739069 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$1,058.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739069 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$1,058.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Global Property Limited As Agent For Hoong Chong Lau must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,058.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]. DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $20.44 Bond $1,058.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $20.44

Reasons

The hearing was held on 20 May 2024.
Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Dai attended the hearing as the landlord's agent.
[The tenant/s] attended the hearing as the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
There is no dispute that [The tenant/s] vacated the premises on 23 September 2023 and instructed a professional cleaner to clean them. The cleaning was done on 30 September 2023. [The tenant/s] submitted an invoice and photos after the premises were professionally cleaned. The landlord’s case
Peeling paint in bathroom 1 above the door frame—He claims this was caused by the tenant not using the ventilation system properly, leading to moisture buildup and peeling paint. However, he does not have definitive proof that this damage was specifically caused by the tenant's actions.
Cleaning issues—He claims there was mould on the curtains, dust in the corners, and pet hair on the carpet, requiring additional carpet treatment beyond what the tenant did. He provided photos in his move-out report to support these claims.
Based on his move-out inspection report, the overall condition after the tenant vacated was not satisfactory for a new tenancy, necessitating additional cleaning and repairs that he is seeking compensation for.
In summary, the landlord is seeking compensation for repainting bathroom 1 ceiling above the door frame, professional cleaning, and carpet treatment, stating the tenant is liable for these based on the tenancy agreement clauses regarding property maintenance and no-pets policy. The tenant’s case
Regarding the peeling paint in bathroom 1, the tenant says it is fair wear and tear, considering the age of the apartment. She also states there was peeling paint in other rooms, suggesting it was not specifically caused by improper ventilation, leading to moisture buildup.
On 30th September 2023, she had a professional cleaning service ($450) clean the entire apartment, including the carpets. She provided photos showing wet carpets after this cleaning.
After the final inspection on 3rd October 2023, she addressed the remaining cleaning issues pointed out by the letting agent, Mr Qian, who was Mr Dai’s colleague in the kitchen, by doing additional cleaning herself on 5th October 2023.
On 11 October 2023, she received an email from Mr Qian stating they were satisfied with the cleanliness and overall condition, except for the curtains, which would require an additional $100 charge plus GST.
She does not accept responsibility for the curtains or additional carpet treatment, as she believes she left the apartment reasonably clean and maintained ventilation to the best of her ability.
She acknowledged having a friend's cat stay for two weeks due to an urgent situation, but she was already planning to move out in September 2023 for other reasons.
She felt the escalating issues raised after her vacating, like cat odour and wardrobe door, were unreasonable, leading her to apply to the Tribunal as her responses were not acknowledged.
In summary, [The tenant/s] disputes the claims for repainting, cleaning, and carpet treatment fees, arguing she left the apartment in a reasonably clean and maintained condition apart from fair wear and tear. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Reasonably clean
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.

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.
Regarding the carpets, Mr Dai submitted that he found many pet hairs on the carpets during the move-out inspection. He claimed that despite the tenant's professional carpet cleaning, the pet hairs could not be fully removed, necessitating a high-temperature treatment for pet hair removal.
Mr Dai provided photos in his move-out report showing dust/dirt in corners, on surfaces like the dryer, range hood filters, and cabinets in the kitchen. He stated the cleaning service did not properly clean these areas up to the standard required for a new tenancy.
Mr Dai also pointed out that cardboard stains were inside the kitchen cabinets that had not been properly cleaned.
Overall, Mr Dai’s position was that while the tenant paid for professional cleaning, the results did not meet a satisfactory level of cleanliness required to re-let the apartment, especially given the presence of pet hair and stains.
For the reasons above, Mr Dai said there was the need to do an additional thorough cleaning and carpet treatment specifically targeting any remaining pet hair, dirt, stains and greasy areas that the tenant's cleaning efforts had missed or not sufficiently addressed according to his inspection report and photos. My view
I went through the move-out inspection photos with Mr Dai. I acknowledged that there were stains in one or two cupboards, but I could not see mould in the curtains in the move-out inspection report. Nor was there evidence of “pet hair” other than an allegation that pet hair was found and required further cleaning.
Mr Qian indicated in writing that the premises was reasonably clean. In the email to the tenant, Mr Qian raised the issue of curtains that require further cleaning, which would cost the tenant $100 plus GST.
My view is that the premises was returned to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy for the following reasons: a. The tenant is not required to leave the premises reasonably clean to the landlord’s standard. The test under section 45(1)(a) RTA is objective. b. The tenant instructed a professional cleaner to clean the apartment. What else must the tenant do to satisfy the landlord? c. Reasonably clean does not mean the tenant must ensure the premises is ready for the landlord to rent out immediately after the premises is vacated. The standard is not, as Mr Dai put it, “up to the standard required for a new tenancy.” That is not the correct test under section 45(1)(a) RTA. d. The landlord must be mindful that s/he is operating a rental business. If the landlord wants to ensure the premises is sparkling clean, he/she can do so at his/her own cost.
Accordingly, I find the tenant returned the property reasonably clean. The landlord’s claim under this heading is 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. Peeling paint above the bathroom 1 door frame
I questioned the landlord about how he could prove the peeling paint was specifically caused by the tenant's lack of ventilation and moisture, as opposed to fair wear and tear in a bathroom.
I noted that it is a bathroom, so some level of moisture/steam is expected from regular use.
Mr Dai did not know how long that particular paint had been there, as he did not know how long his client had owned the property before the tenant moved in.
The burden was on Mr Dai to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the peeling paint was the tenant's responsibility and not just fair wear and tear.
I told Mr Dai I could see him having difficulties proving the causation between the tenant's actions and the peeling paint damage because the burden of proof to hold the tenant liable for repainting costs was on him. Given the lack of evidence definitively tying it to the tenant's actions versus fair bathroom use over time, I am not persuaded that the tenant was liable for the peeling paint above the bathroom 1 door frame.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded in proceedings I grant her application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739069 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739069 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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