What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758617 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4758617?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Outgoings - Gas Cylinder Refill: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $373.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758617?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758617?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11748317-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758617 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4758617?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Outgoings - Gas Cylinder Refill: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $373.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758617?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758617?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11748317-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758617 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758617 — net $2,144.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	By consent: Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$373.75	Rubbish removal
Outgoings - gas cylinder refill	$250.00	Outgoings - gas cylinder refill
Carpet replacement	$800.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,144.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,144.19

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. CLEANING, LAWNMOWING & RUBBISH REMOVAL The law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1

The term “premises” includes any land and appurtenances, other than facilities 2 .

The requirement to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish therefore applies to both the inside and outside of the property.

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 Evidence and submissions of the parties

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the inside or outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord seeks compensation as follows: a. Carpet cleaning:$500.00 b. Internal cleaning:$500.00 c. Lawnmowing:$95.00 d. Rubbish removal:$747.50

The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning, which I grant in full for $500.00. I deal with the remaining contentious issues below. Internal cleaning

The landlord gave evidence that the inside of the premises, particularly the kitchen and bathroom, were not reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the kitchen cupboards, drawers and sink in a dirty condition. The oven does not appear to have been cleaned. The bathroom and toilet have not been cleaned very well.

The tenant accepts that they did not leave the kitchen and bathroom in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, but disputes the amount sought by the landlord for cleaning. Analysis

Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find that the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This finding is made on the basis that the kitchen and bathroom were left in an unclean state. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

The landlord submitted an invoice for $500.00 for cleaning. It records that an “End Of Tenancy Deep Clean” was completed and two days was spent cleaning the property.

I agree with the tenant’s submission that a two day deep clean was not required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Whilst the kitchen and bathroom needed cleaning, the rest of the property appears reasonably clean and tidy in the exit inspection photographs.

The landlord gave evidence that the property was grubby and the skirting boards needed to be cleaned. With the exception of the kitchen and bathroom, the photographs do not show the property in a grubby condition. The majority of the house appears to be reasonably clean and tidy. A tenant is not required to leave the property in a pristine condition and skirting boards do not need to be cleaned in order for a property to be considered reasonably clean and tidy.

The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning. The average hourly rate is approximately $50.00 per hour. Considering the state of the kitchen and bathroom at the end of the tenancy, I find approximately 4 hours’ worth of labour would have been required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for internal cleaning is granted for a total of $200.00. Lawns

The landlord claims the lawns needed to be mowed at the end of the tenancy and submitted an invoice for $95.00.

The tenant gave evidence that they hired someone to mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant submits that the invoice produced by the landlord is dated 13 November 2023, which is approximately one month after the tenancy ended. The tenant claims that whilst the lawns might have needed mowing on this date, at the end of the tenancy on 3 October 2023, they did not. Analysis

The exit inspection photographs include photographs of the lawns. The grass appears trimmed, and the lawns look tidy.

On the basis of the photographs of the lawns taken at the end of the tenancy, I find that the tenant left them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for lawnmowing is dismissed. Rubbish removal

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant left rubbish inside and outside the property. The landlord submitted an invoice for a total of $1,207.50 for rubbish removal. Of this amount, the landlord seeks compensation of $747.50, which excludes the cost of removing a fallen tree.

The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the tenant left some rubbish and miscellaneous belongings in the lounge at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also submitted a photograph of a skip bin outside the property, which is full of items the landlord claims is the tenant’s rubbish.

The tenant accepts that they left some rubbish and personal belongings in the lounge at the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies that they left any rubbish outside the property and claims that none of the items in the photograph of the skip bin look like any of the items left by them in the lounge.

The tenant accepts that they should pay the landlord some compensation for rubbish removal, but disputes the amount sought by the landlord. Analysis

On the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find that the tenant left rubbish and miscellaneous household items in the lounge. This included two tables, a roll of carpet or a rug and some rubbish bags. A pair of rubber gloves and plastic tray was also left under the kitchen sink.

The landlord did not submit any photographs of rubbish allegedly left outside the property by the tenant. I do not find that the tenant left any rubbish outside the property.

Comparing the photographs of the items left behind in the lounge by the tenant and the items disposed of in the skip bin, I accept the tenant’s submission that there are a number of items in the skip bin that do not appear to belong to the tenant. There also seems to be a large amount of garden debris disposed of in the skip bin. Whilst the tenant is responsible for the cost of disposing of rubbish belonging to them, they are not responsible for the cost of disposing of other rubbish or garden debris.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted for a total of $373.75. I consider this figure fairly reflects the amount of rubbish left behind by the tenant and the fact that it included two tables, which can be difficult to dispose of.

LIGHTBULBS

The law

At the end of the tenancy, a tenant is required to leave all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 8

A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 9

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 10 Evidence and submissions of the parties

The landlord gave evidence that they had to replace lightbulbs in the following areas at the end of the tenancy: a. Three lightbulbs in the bedrooms b. Two lightbulbs in the lounge c. Two sensor lights at the front and back door

The landlord submitted an invoice for $540.50 to replace these lightbulbs and claims the tenant is responsible for this cost.

The tenant gave evidence that the same number of lightbulbs that were provided and working at the beginning of the tenancy were working at the end of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that the sensor lights never worked and submits that the amount sought by the landlord to replace the lightbulbs is excessive. Analysis

I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy.

Overtime, it is foreseeable that lightbulbs may run out and require replacement due to use. No evidence was submitted by the landlord to suggest unreasonable use of the lights by the tenant. The fact that some lightbulbs may have required replacement at the end of the tenancy is a result of fair wear and 8 Residential Tenancies Act 986, section 40(1)(e)(v). 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i). 10 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. tear. A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

GAS BOTTLE

Section 39(3) and (4) RTA states: (3) The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4) Without limited the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a) electricity and gas: (b) telephone and Internet: (c) Supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. Evidence and submissions of the parties

The landlord gave evidence that a full 45kg gas cylinder was provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy for the provision of hot water. This was empty at the end of the tenancy and needed to be refilled. The landlord submitted an invoice for $250.00.

The tenant submits that the tenancy agreement does not record that they must refill the gas cylinder at the end of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that this obligation was never spoken about with them by any of their property managers. Therefore, the tenant submits they are not liable to pay the cost of refilling the gas cylinder. Analysis

Despite the fact that the tenancy agreement does not specifically state that the tenant must refill the gas cylinder at the end of the tenancy, section 39(3) and (4) RTA require this.

The landlord paid for and provided the tenant with a full gas cylinder at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant used gas during the tenancy. The tenant is responsible for the cost of using gas during the tenancy.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to refill the gas cylinder is granted in full for $250.00. DAMAGE – REPLACE CARPET IN THE LOUNGE The law

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. Evidence and submissions of the parties

The landlord submitted photographs of the carpet in the lounge taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning do not show any stains or marks on the carpet. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show an obvious red stain and some drawings. There are also other marks apparent.

The landlord gave evidence that the carpet was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy.

The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer, as the excess fee would have been applied to each individual stain, thus making it more expensive than to pay for the replacement cost alone.

The tenant accepts that the carpet was stained during the tenancy. The tenant has twin toddlers who she claims are responsible.

The tenant states that the carpet was professionally cleaned and the photographs submitted by the landlord were taken before this occurred. The tenant submits that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the stains were not removed as a result of the cleaning. Analysis

I find that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy. I consider the damage to be careless, rather than intentional.

The landlord submitted photographs of the stains and drawings taken at the end of the tenancy. They are moderate – large in size and there is more than just one. A reasonable area of the carpet has been damaged, as opposed to only a small area. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the cleaning did not remove the stains. Considering the number and size of the stains, I find it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the carpet in the lounge.

The carpet was approximately one year old at the end of the tenancy and therefore, a slight adjustment to the total replacement cost needs to be made for depreciation. I consider an adjustment of $100.00 to be fair and reasonable.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $800.00.

All of the amounts ordered above are proved. FILING FEE & SUPPRESISON

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted their request for name suppression.

The tenant has asked me to grant them name suppression. I have a discretion to grant them name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’

The tenant gave evidence that the state they left this property in was out of character for them. The tenant claims they suffered a significant mental health breakdown during the tenancy as a result of being a solo-parent to twin toddlers and leaving an abusive relationship. They are concerned about the effect publication will have on their ability to secure housing for them and their children in the future.

I accept the evidence of the tenant regarding the personal challenges they experienced during this tenancy. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that it was out of character for them to leave the property in the state they did. A search of the Tribunal’s database does not reveal any previous instances where an order has been made against the tenant for cleaning or damage.

Whilst there is a public interest in prospective landlords knowing what occurred during this tenancy, I must balance that against the tenant’s interests in being able to secure stable housing for their young children in the future.

When weighing these two interests, I must also put the tenant’s conduct into a wider context. I have made a finding that the tenant did not leave the kitchen and bathroom reasonably clean and tidy, and is responsible for carelessly damaging the carpet however, the overall state the property was left in at the end of the tenancy was nowhere near the level of seriousness the Tribunal often sees.

In the special circumstances of this case, I consider that the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication.

I grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758617 — net $2,144.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	By consent: Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$373.75	Rubbish removal
Outgoings - gas cylinder refill	$250.00	Outgoings - gas cylinder refill
Carpet replacement	$800.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,144.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,144.19