What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4740168 about?

The tribunal order states: Queen Street Realty T/As Century 21 Steven Dai must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4740168?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Items Left In Premises: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740168?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10151532-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4740168 about?

The tribunal order states: Queen Street Realty T/As Century 21 Steven Dai must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4740168?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Items Left In Premises: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740168?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10151532-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740168 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740168 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning at end of tenancy	$100.00		Cleaning at end of tenancy
Compensation: cleanliness of premises		$500.00	cleanliness of premises
Compensation: items left in premises		$700.00	items left in premises
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$100.00	$1,220.44
Net award		$1,120.44
Bond		$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,120.44

Order

Queen Street Realty T/As Century 21 Steven Dai must pay [The tenant/s] $1,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Steven Dai appeared for the landlord.
This tenancy began on 11 February 2023 and was fixed for a year, due to end on 11 February 2024. The tenancy came to an end on 26 November 2023, before the end of the fixed term. The rent is $390.00 per week and a bond of $1,560.00 was paid.
Initially the tenancy was managed by the owner, Mr Peter Wang. Subsequently Queen Street Realty took over the property management, from 18 February 2023. There was a change of tenant, with [Tenant 1] taking the place of the original tenant within a few weeks of the start of the tenancy (from 27 February 2023).
There are two applications, both of which were heard together. The tenants’ application is number 4740168. The landlord’s application is number 4776417.
The tenants have applied for the return of the bond and compensation arising from the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenants state there were belongings from a previous tenant left in the premises, and items belonging to the landlord were being stored there and as a result, they did not have full use of the premises. They also noted in their application claims relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, but these claims are primarily about the cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The application included a request to be released from a fixed term tenancy. However, as the tenancy has now come to an end, this issue no longer needs to be determined.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning and repairs, and payment from the bond following the end of the tenancy. Tenants’ application: 4740168 Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness: see Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA.
The tenants claim that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy, and have produced photographic and oral evidence at the hearing. A video taken on 15 February 2023 was provided. The tenants notified the landlord, but no steps were taken and, following advice from Tenancy Services, they issued a 14 day notice to the landlord on 18 February 2023. By the time a cleaner arranged by the landlord came (on 6 March 2023) they had already done the cleaning themselves, since they had already moved in. The tenants claim they spent 28 hours cleaning and seek compensation of $635.60 based on the minimum wage rate of $22.70 per hour.
The landlord does not dispute what has been shown on the tenant’s video footage and accepts that further cleaning was required. This was arranged for 27 February 2023 and was re-scheduled to 6 March 2023. The current landlord took over management of the property on 18 February 2023.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the tenants have established that the premises was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Therefore, they ought to be compensated for the additional cleaning they had to undertake. Taking into account the tenant’s evidence of the time they spent on cleaning at the start of the tenancy, and noting the overall condition, I consider the amount of $500.00 to be a reasonable level of compensation. This amount is awarded above. Items left in the premises
The tenants state they were restricted in their ability to use the premises because a previous tenant’s belongings were stored there. They have described items being stored in the cupboards, and an area being partitioned off with items belonging to the owner/landlord being stored. The tenants claim that, as a result, one third of the premises was unusable. Their written evidence (of texts) is that the belongings remained in the premises until 23 June 2023, although they consider they were removed later, after six months. They seek compensation based on one third of the rent for 19 weeks (the tenants calculate this to be $3,705.00).
In response the landlord notes the storage of the owner’s items was communicated between the tenants and the owner (via the owner’s friend). The rent was reduced from $400.00 to $390.00 per week on the understanding that the owner could store some items in the premises. Mr Dai was only recently made aware of the previous tenant’s belongings being left behind. This was communicated with the owner and the items were then removed during the tenancy.
In response the tenants understand that these issues related to the owner, rather than the current property manager, Mr Dai. However, this issue was communicated to him. They do not accept that a $10.00 per week rent reduction was to compensate them for storage of items by the owner, and there was no negotiation on this basis. They were offered rent at $390.00 per week.
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the tenants have established their claim and ought to be compensated for the inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from the items being left in the premises. In determining the amount, the tenants’ view of the level of compensation, and the basis for it has been noted. Overall, in view of the nature and duration of the issue (around 19 weeks), noting the rent the tenants were paying, I consider $700.00 to be a reasonable level of compensation. Landlord’s application: 4776417

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy ended on 26 November 2023. The landlord initially applied for rent arrears of $467.14, as noted in the application. At the hearing, the landlord stated that the tenants owed one days rent, and had only paid up to 25 November 2023. The landlord now seeks $55.71 in rent arrears.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s claim that they owe any rent. Their evidence is that they were up to date with their rent payments and had paid rent to the end of the tenancy. They refer to correspondence from the landlord indicating this.
In this case, the landlord has not produced a rent summary showing payment of rent from the start to the end of the tenancy. There is also contrary evidence from the tenants, based on their own records. As the evidence is evenly balanced, I find the landlord has failed to establish, with sufficient evidence, that the tenants owe rent of $55.71. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants 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) of the RTA.
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $200.00. The landlord has provided evidence, including an invoice, and photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants state that they cleaned the premises, to the best of their ability, and note that some of the items were not in a good condition at the start of the tenancy (such as the microwave). They accept their cleaning was not perfect and acknowledge some areas may require further cleaning.
Overall, I find the landlord has established the claim for cleaning costs, although I do not accept all costs are the responsibility of the tenants. The tenants are only required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and not necessarily pristine or to the standard fit for new tenants. Therefore, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $100.00 for cleaning costs, being 50% of the costs incurred for cleaning. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to a lock, skirting board, and the showerhead and hose.
To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

The landlord states the tenants were responsible for damaging the bathroom lock, which was functional at the start of the tenancy. The damage to the skirting board in the bathroom is also attributed to the tenants, along with damage to a showerhead and shower hose. The landlord has provided receipts from [Hardware store] for purchase of the materials to undertake the repairs. The invoice for the repair work itself is one generated by the landlord, for the amount of $600.00, and the invoice records this is for “miscellaneous repair.”
The tenants deny responsibility for the damage claimed, stating they had emailed the landlord notifying of the items requiring repair. This included the shower, faulty lock and damaged skirting board. They provided documentary and photographic evidence in support.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, and in view of the tenants’ evidence concerning the issues, I find the landlord has failed to establish that the damage occurred during this tenancy. Furthermore, this damage was more likely the result of fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use. For these reasons, the tenants will not be liable, and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants only, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details, in view of the tenants being substantially successful in the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740168 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning at end of tenancy	$100.00		Cleaning at end of tenancy
Compensation: cleanliness of premises		$500.00	cleanliness of premises
Compensation: items left in premises		$700.00	items left in premises
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$100.00	$1,220.44
Net award		$1,120.44
Bond		$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,120.44

Order

Queen Street Realty T/As Century 21 Steven Dai must pay [The tenant/s] $1,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Steven Dai appeared for the landlord.
This tenancy began on 11 February 2023 and was fixed for a year, due to end on 11 February 2024. The tenancy came to an end on 26 November 2023, before the end of the fixed term. The rent is $390.00 per week and a bond of $1,560.00 was paid.
Initially the tenancy was managed by the owner, Mr Peter Wang. Subsequently Queen Street Realty took over the property management, from 18 February 2023. There was a change of tenant, with [Tenant 1] taking the place of the original tenant within a few weeks of the start of the tenancy (from 27 February 2023).
There are two applications, both of which were heard together. The tenants’ application is number 4740168. The landlord’s application is number 4776417.
The tenants have applied for the return of the bond and compensation arising from the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenants state there were belongings from a previous tenant left in the premises, and items belonging to the landlord were being stored there and as a result, they did not have full use of the premises. They also noted in their application claims relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, but these claims are primarily about the cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The application included a request to be released from a fixed term tenancy. However, as the tenancy has now come to an end, this issue no longer needs to be determined.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning and repairs, and payment from the bond following the end of the tenancy. Tenants’ application: 4740168 Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness: see Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA.
The tenants claim that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy, and have produced photographic and oral evidence at the hearing. A video taken on 15 February 2023 was provided. The tenants notified the landlord, but no steps were taken and, following advice from Tenancy Services, they issued a 14 day notice to the landlord on 18 February 2023. By the time a cleaner arranged by the landlord came (on 6 March 2023) they had already done the cleaning themselves, since they had already moved in. The tenants claim they spent 28 hours cleaning and seek compensation of $635.60 based on the minimum wage rate of $22.70 per hour.
The landlord does not dispute what has been shown on the tenant’s video footage and accepts that further cleaning was required. This was arranged for 27 February 2023 and was re-scheduled to 6 March 2023. The current landlord took over management of the property on 18 February 2023.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the tenants have established that the premises was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Therefore, they ought to be compensated for the additional cleaning they had to undertake. Taking into account the tenant’s evidence of the time they spent on cleaning at the start of the tenancy, and noting the overall condition, I consider the amount of $500.00 to be a reasonable level of compensation. This amount is awarded above. Items left in the premises
The tenants state they were restricted in their ability to use the premises because a previous tenant’s belongings were stored there. They have described items being stored in the cupboards, and an area being partitioned off with items belonging to the owner/landlord being stored. The tenants claim that, as a result, one third of the premises was unusable. Their written evidence (of texts) is that the belongings remained in the premises until 23 June 2023, although they consider they were removed later, after six months. They seek compensation based on one third of the rent for 19 weeks (the tenants calculate this to be $3,705.00).
In response the landlord notes the storage of the owner’s items was communicated between the tenants and the owner (via the owner’s friend). The rent was reduced from $400.00 to $390.00 per week on the understanding that the owner could store some items in the premises. Mr Dai was only recently made aware of the previous tenant’s belongings being left behind. This was communicated with the owner and the items were then removed during the tenancy.
In response the tenants understand that these issues related to the owner, rather than the current property manager, Mr Dai. However, this issue was communicated to him. They do not accept that a $10.00 per week rent reduction was to compensate them for storage of items by the owner, and there was no negotiation on this basis. They were offered rent at $390.00 per week.
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the tenants have established their claim and ought to be compensated for the inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from the items being left in the premises. In determining the amount, the tenants’ view of the level of compensation, and the basis for it has been noted. Overall, in view of the nature and duration of the issue (around 19 weeks), noting the rent the tenants were paying, I consider $700.00 to be a reasonable level of compensation. Landlord’s application: 4776417

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy ended on 26 November 2023. The landlord initially applied for rent arrears of $467.14, as noted in the application. At the hearing, the landlord stated that the tenants owed one days rent, and had only paid up to 25 November 2023. The landlord now seeks $55.71 in rent arrears.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s claim that they owe any rent. Their evidence is that they were up to date with their rent payments and had paid rent to the end of the tenancy. They refer to correspondence from the landlord indicating this.
In this case, the landlord has not produced a rent summary showing payment of rent from the start to the end of the tenancy. There is also contrary evidence from the tenants, based on their own records. As the evidence is evenly balanced, I find the landlord has failed to establish, with sufficient evidence, that the tenants owe rent of $55.71. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants 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) of the RTA.
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $200.00. The landlord has provided evidence, including an invoice, and photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants state that they cleaned the premises, to the best of their ability, and note that some of the items were not in a good condition at the start of the tenancy (such as the microwave). They accept their cleaning was not perfect and acknowledge some areas may require further cleaning.
Overall, I find the landlord has established the claim for cleaning costs, although I do not accept all costs are the responsibility of the tenants. The tenants are only required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and not necessarily pristine or to the standard fit for new tenants. Therefore, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $100.00 for cleaning costs, being 50% of the costs incurred for cleaning. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to a lock, skirting board, and the showerhead and hose.
To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

The landlord states the tenants were responsible for damaging the bathroom lock, which was functional at the start of the tenancy. The damage to the skirting board in the bathroom is also attributed to the tenants, along with damage to a showerhead and shower hose. The landlord has provided receipts from [Hardware store] for purchase of the materials to undertake the repairs. The invoice for the repair work itself is one generated by the landlord, for the amount of $600.00, and the invoice records this is for “miscellaneous repair.”
The tenants deny responsibility for the damage claimed, stating they had emailed the landlord notifying of the items requiring repair. This included the shower, faulty lock and damaged skirting board. They provided documentary and photographic evidence in support.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, and in view of the tenants’ evidence concerning the issues, I find the landlord has failed to establish that the damage occurred during this tenancy. Furthermore, this damage was more likely the result of fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use. For these reasons, the tenants will not be liable, and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants only, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details, in view of the tenants being substantially successful in the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740168 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740168 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions