What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4760037 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay Crockers Property Management Limited $300.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 4760037?

Compensation: Floor: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760037?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10788887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4760037 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay Crockers Property Management Limited $300.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 4760037?

Compensation: Floor: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760037?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10788887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760037 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4760037 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: floor	$300.00	floor
Net award	$300.00
Bond	$605.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay Crockers Property Management Limited $300.00 from the bond, as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $605.33 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited: $300.00 [The tenant/s]: $305.33
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] attended with their daughter [The tenants’ daughter]. The landlord was represented by Ms Cherry Men.
This tenancy began on 17 April 2021 and came to an end on 8 December 2023. There are three applications, and all were heard together. The tenants have filed two applications (4793937 and 4760037). In application 4760037 they seek compensation of $2,000.00 for water charges paid when there was a water leak, payment made to the landlord for an invoice for repairs to the gas stove ($1,200), and additional cleaning they had to do at the start of the tenancy. They also deny liability for professional cleaning charges claimed by the landlord at the end of the tenancy (application 4793937).
The landlord has filed an application seeking payment from the bond and compensation for cleaning costs, and repairs for damage to the floors, walls and skirting board/door frames.
The balance of the bond of $605.33 remains at the Bond Centre. The tenants’ applications: 4760037 & 4793937 Condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy
The tenants state that the premises was not clean at the start of the tenancy, and they had to do some additional cleaning to remove mould in the bathroom and grease on the kitchen walls. They work as professional cleaners. They note that the move in inspection was not done with the landlord, so this issue could have been avoided. They refer to an email from the landlord about the need for additional cleaning.
The landlord states the premises was clean at the start of the tenancy and accepts the tenants were good at maintaining the property at a high standard. The landlord has explained that the email noted that as they were cleaners, they had the option to do additional cleaning to bring it up to their standard. The landlord has provided its inspection report completed at the start of the tenancy.
Overall, I acknowledge that the tenants maintained a high standard of cleanliness. However, because they have been unable to provide photographic evidence in support, I am unable to find that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Additional water charges arising from the water leak
The tenants seek compensation for additional water charges alleged to have been incurred during the tenancy due to a water leak. They have provided oral evidence of contacting Watercare and notifying the landlord, in November 2022, about the water leak. The landlord has explained the steps taken to investigate the issue, including sending a plumber and advising the tenants how to test for leaks.
While noting the tenants’ perspective, in the absence of evidence to support the claim that they incurred additional water charges arising from a water leak during the tenancy, this claim is dismissed. Invoice for repair of the gas stove
The tenants have explained the circumstances concerning the gas stove and the reasons why they believe they should not be liable for this invoice. The landlord has referred the Tribunal to a mediated order concerning this issue. Having read the mediated order, I note that the parties settled this matter at mediation. Therefore, the Tribunal is unable to determine this issue, since it has already been resolved. The landlord’s application: 4818957 Cleaning
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment “to be made after consideration of all the evidence.” 2
Therefore, “reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 3 . This does not equate to being commercially clean 4 , spotless 5 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens at [19]. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 6 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8
In this case, having considered the landlord’s inspection reports, and the photographic evidence produced at the hearing, I find that the tenants have complied with this obligation. Therefore, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the floor, walls, skirting board and doorframe.
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.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and advises that the insurance excess is $1,500.00. The rent for the premises is $1,200.00 per week.
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. 7 Richards v Scally (above) 8 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Floor damage
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the damage to the floor was caused during the tenancy. I note the tenants’ evidence that they used a trolley to move the fridge. They accept that the marks on the floor were caused when moving the fridge in place. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
In terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the landlord, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.
The landlord seeks compensation of $600.00 for replacement of the six affected floorboards. The landlord states the insurer was contacted, but regarded each as a separate event, and the amount claimed was less than the insurance excess of $1,500.00. I note the landlord’s evidence that the floor was 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, after taking depreciation into account, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $300.00 for the damage to the floor. Other damage
I find that the landlord has not established the claim for damage to the walls, skirting board, and doorframe, as the nature of this damage is more likely to be the result of fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants, and the Tribunal, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. Filing fee
As neither party has been substantially successful, each is to bear the cost of their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4760037 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: floor	$300.00	floor
Net award	$300.00
Bond	$605.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay Crockers Property Management Limited $300.00 from the bond, as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $605.33 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited: $300.00 [The tenant/s]: $305.33
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] attended with their daughter [The tenants’ daughter]. The landlord was represented by Ms Cherry Men.
This tenancy began on 17 April 2021 and came to an end on 8 December 2023. There are three applications, and all were heard together. The tenants have filed two applications (4793937 and 4760037). In application 4760037 they seek compensation of $2,000.00 for water charges paid when there was a water leak, payment made to the landlord for an invoice for repairs to the gas stove ($1,200), and additional cleaning they had to do at the start of the tenancy. They also deny liability for professional cleaning charges claimed by the landlord at the end of the tenancy (application 4793937).
The landlord has filed an application seeking payment from the bond and compensation for cleaning costs, and repairs for damage to the floors, walls and skirting board/door frames.
The balance of the bond of $605.33 remains at the Bond Centre. The tenants’ applications: 4760037 & 4793937 Condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy
The tenants state that the premises was not clean at the start of the tenancy, and they had to do some additional cleaning to remove mould in the bathroom and grease on the kitchen walls. They work as professional cleaners. They note that the move in inspection was not done with the landlord, so this issue could have been avoided. They refer to an email from the landlord about the need for additional cleaning.
The landlord states the premises was clean at the start of the tenancy and accepts the tenants were good at maintaining the property at a high standard. The landlord has explained that the email noted that as they were cleaners, they had the option to do additional cleaning to bring it up to their standard. The landlord has provided its inspection report completed at the start of the tenancy.
Overall, I acknowledge that the tenants maintained a high standard of cleanliness. However, because they have been unable to provide photographic evidence in support, I am unable to find that the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Additional water charges arising from the water leak
The tenants seek compensation for additional water charges alleged to have been incurred during the tenancy due to a water leak. They have provided oral evidence of contacting Watercare and notifying the landlord, in November 2022, about the water leak. The landlord has explained the steps taken to investigate the issue, including sending a plumber and advising the tenants how to test for leaks.
While noting the tenants’ perspective, in the absence of evidence to support the claim that they incurred additional water charges arising from a water leak during the tenancy, this claim is dismissed. Invoice for repair of the gas stove
The tenants have explained the circumstances concerning the gas stove and the reasons why they believe they should not be liable for this invoice. The landlord has referred the Tribunal to a mediated order concerning this issue. Having read the mediated order, I note that the parties settled this matter at mediation. Therefore, the Tribunal is unable to determine this issue, since it has already been resolved. The landlord’s application: 4818957 Cleaning
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment “to be made after consideration of all the evidence.” 2
Therefore, “reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 3 . This does not equate to being commercially clean 4 , spotless 5 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens at [19]. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 6 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8
In this case, having considered the landlord’s inspection reports, and the photographic evidence produced at the hearing, I find that the tenants have complied with this obligation. Therefore, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the floor, walls, skirting board and doorframe.
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.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and advises that the insurance excess is $1,500.00. The rent for the premises is $1,200.00 per week.
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. 7 Richards v Scally (above) 8 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Floor damage
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the damage to the floor was caused during the tenancy. I note the tenants’ evidence that they used a trolley to move the fridge. They accept that the marks on the floor were caused when moving the fridge in place. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
In terms of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the landlord, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.
The landlord seeks compensation of $600.00 for replacement of the six affected floorboards. The landlord states the insurer was contacted, but regarded each as a separate event, and the amount claimed was less than the insurance excess of $1,500.00. I note the landlord’s evidence that the floor was 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, after taking depreciation into account, the landlord is to be compensated in the amount of $300.00 for the damage to the floor. Other damage
I find that the landlord has not established the claim for damage to the walls, skirting board, and doorframe, as the nature of this damage is more likely to be the result of fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants, and the Tribunal, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. Filing fee
As neither party has been substantially successful, each is to bear the cost of their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760037 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760037 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants 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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions