What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756915?

The tribunal order states: Noel Selwyn and Angel Marjorie Alaina Faith Pepi must pay Raveen

How much money was awarded in case 4756915?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4675730 D…: $1,917.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,475.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756915?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10483295-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756915?

The tribunal order states: Noel Selwyn and Angel Marjorie Alaina Faith Pepi must pay Raveen

How much money was awarded in case 4756915?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4675730 D…: $1,917.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,475.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756915?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10483295-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34A Maplesden Drive, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756915 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756915 — net $7,382.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4675730 dated 17/11/2023	$1,917.26	Previous order application 4675730 dated 17/11/2023
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,475.45	Rubbish removal
Repairs (x6 insurance excesses charged to landlord	$3,300.00	Repairs (x6 insurance excesses charged to landlord
Net award	$7,382.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,382.71

Order

Noel Selwyn and Angel Marjorie Alaina Faith Pepi must pay Raveen Nanayakkara $7,382.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 November 2023 under application 4675730.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. The landlord was initially represented by Mr Chiu, but part way through the hearing the Tribunal joined the landlord to the hearing to clarify the insurance position.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 5 August 2019. On 17 November 2023 the Tribunal made terminating this tenancy and for rent arrears to that date. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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

The landlord said that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $1,600 plus GST for “chemical used for mould removal, oven clean, kitchen cabinet wipe, carpet vacuum, general clean”.
The landlord produced some photos from the beginning and end of the tenancy. Those photos mainly showed considerable mould in the bathroom. The landlord said that the property had been kept in fairly good condition by the tenants during the tenancy and that issues had only arisen towards the very end of the tenancy.
The tenants accepted that they had not cleaned properly. They accepted that the oven was not clean, the kitchen cabinets need to be wiped, the carpet required vacuuming and general cleaning was required. They said that they did not accept the mould as there was mould in the property generally and that the extractor fan was not working which caused the mould (but did not provide any evidence of this or any communication with the landlord).
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 returned in a spotless condition ready for a new tenant to move into. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies, and particularly so in a tenancy of this duration.
The amount claimed by the landlord is very high. Costs claimed must be reasonable. Having considered the photos provided, the invoice submitted and having heard from the parties I consider that the amount of $600.00 plus GST ($690.00) is reasonable in all the circumstances. I order that the tenants compensate the landlord in this amount.
The landlord said further that the tenants did not remove all rubbish. They submitted a number of photos showing a large amount of rubbish left behind both inside and outside the house.
The landlord submitted an invoice in the amount of $1283.00 plus GST ($1,475.45) for rubbish removal.
The tenants accepted that they left a large amount of rubbish behind. I consider that the amount claimed is reasonable in all the circumstances. I order that the tenants pay compensation to the landlord in the amount of $1,475.45 for rubbish removal.

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.
The landlord submitted an invoice in the amount of $16,178.14 for repair of various damage, although this invoice also includes the cleaning and rubbish removal considered above. The cost of repairing the damage was less those amounts.
The landlord submitted various photos of damage to walls and doors.
The landlord has made a claim against their insurance as confirmed at the hearing. The landlord provided correspondence with their insurer outlining their acceptance of the claim, the work required, and the excess amounts applied. The landlord’s insurer has accepted the claim but has applied six excess amounts of $550 each, a total amount of $3,330.00.
The landlord therefore seeks the excess amounts paid from the tenants.
The tenants accepted that there was damage to the wall in the kitchen, the kitchen cabinet, the laundry door, holes in the hallway and holes in the bedroom in two rooms.
The landlord also had claims for broken windows, light fittings, carpet damage and damage to a wardrobe). The tenants disputed the broken windows and damage to the wardrobe (the damage was apparently caused by the Police who were looking for a person entirely unrelated to the premises) and the carpet damage. In respect of the carpet, the tenants said that there was no carpet damage except in the hallway and that was caused by a leaking hot water cylinder. I note that the landlord did not provide any photos showing carpet damage. In respect of the light fittings they said that they lights were taped up at the start of the tenancy and that they did not cause any damage.
I do not consider that it is necessary for me to review each and every claim for damage because the landlord’s insurer have offered to settle the matter by applying only 6 excess amounts, rather than multiple excess amounts for each and every claim. I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for six separate events and so should be responsible for six excess amounts. I order that the tenants pay the excess amounts charged by the landlord’s insurer in the amount of $3,300.00.
The landlord did not see reimbursement of the filing fee or an order for name suppression. The tenants are not entitled to an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756915 — net $7,382.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4675730 dated 17/11/2023	$1,917.26	Previous order application 4675730 dated 17/11/2023
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,475.45	Rubbish removal
Repairs (x6 insurance excesses charged to landlord	$3,300.00	Repairs (x6 insurance excesses charged to landlord
Net award	$7,382.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,382.71

Order

Noel Selwyn and Angel Marjorie Alaina Faith Pepi must pay Raveen Nanayakkara $7,382.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 November 2023 under application 4675730.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone. The landlord was initially represented by Mr Chiu, but part way through the hearing the Tribunal joined the landlord to the hearing to clarify the insurance position.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 5 August 2019. On 17 November 2023 the Tribunal made terminating this tenancy and for rent arrears to that date. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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

The landlord said that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $1,600 plus GST for “chemical used for mould removal, oven clean, kitchen cabinet wipe, carpet vacuum, general clean”.
The landlord produced some photos from the beginning and end of the tenancy. Those photos mainly showed considerable mould in the bathroom. The landlord said that the property had been kept in fairly good condition by the tenants during the tenancy and that issues had only arisen towards the very end of the tenancy.
The tenants accepted that they had not cleaned properly. They accepted that the oven was not clean, the kitchen cabinets need to be wiped, the carpet required vacuuming and general cleaning was required. They said that they did not accept the mould as there was mould in the property generally and that the extractor fan was not working which caused the mould (but did not provide any evidence of this or any communication with the landlord).
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 returned in a spotless condition ready for a new tenant to move into. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies, and particularly so in a tenancy of this duration.
The amount claimed by the landlord is very high. Costs claimed must be reasonable. Having considered the photos provided, the invoice submitted and having heard from the parties I consider that the amount of $600.00 plus GST ($690.00) is reasonable in all the circumstances. I order that the tenants compensate the landlord in this amount.
The landlord said further that the tenants did not remove all rubbish. They submitted a number of photos showing a large amount of rubbish left behind both inside and outside the house.
The landlord submitted an invoice in the amount of $1283.00 plus GST ($1,475.45) for rubbish removal.
The tenants accepted that they left a large amount of rubbish behind. I consider that the amount claimed is reasonable in all the circumstances. I order that the tenants pay compensation to the landlord in the amount of $1,475.45 for rubbish removal.

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.
The landlord submitted an invoice in the amount of $16,178.14 for repair of various damage, although this invoice also includes the cleaning and rubbish removal considered above. The cost of repairing the damage was less those amounts.
The landlord submitted various photos of damage to walls and doors.
The landlord has made a claim against their insurance as confirmed at the hearing. The landlord provided correspondence with their insurer outlining their acceptance of the claim, the work required, and the excess amounts applied. The landlord’s insurer has accepted the claim but has applied six excess amounts of $550 each, a total amount of $3,330.00.
The landlord therefore seeks the excess amounts paid from the tenants.
The tenants accepted that there was damage to the wall in the kitchen, the kitchen cabinet, the laundry door, holes in the hallway and holes in the bedroom in two rooms.
The landlord also had claims for broken windows, light fittings, carpet damage and damage to a wardrobe). The tenants disputed the broken windows and damage to the wardrobe (the damage was apparently caused by the Police who were looking for a person entirely unrelated to the premises) and the carpet damage. In respect of the carpet, the tenants said that there was no carpet damage except in the hallway and that was caused by a leaking hot water cylinder. I note that the landlord did not provide any photos showing carpet damage. In respect of the light fittings they said that they lights were taped up at the start of the tenancy and that they did not cause any damage.
I do not consider that it is necessary for me to review each and every claim for damage because the landlord’s insurer have offered to settle the matter by applying only 6 excess amounts, rather than multiple excess amounts for each and every claim. I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for six separate events and so should be responsible for six excess amounts. I order that the tenants pay the excess amounts charged by the landlord’s insurer in the amount of $3,300.00.
The landlord did not see reimbursement of the filing fee or an order for name suppression. The tenants are not entitled to an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756915 — Property damage at 34A Maplesden Drive, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756915 — Property damage at 34A Maplesden Drive, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

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