What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4771957?

The tribunal order states: Frances Marie Mather and Sasha Austin must pay Team Group Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4771957?

Cleaning: $220.23 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Benchtop: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,771.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump And Remote: $379.80 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771957?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10012354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4771957?

The tribunal order states: Frances Marie Mather and Sasha Austin must pay Team Group Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4771957?

Cleaning: $220.23 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Benchtop: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,771.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump And Remote: $379.80 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771957?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10012354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Mahoe Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4771957 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771957 — net $1,381.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: stain removal	$220.23	Carpet Cleaning: stain removal
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: damage to walls	$1,771.00	Repairs: damage to walls
Repairs: vinyl	$100.00	Repairs: vinyl
Repairs: heat pump and remote	$379.80	Repairs: heat pump and remote
Repairs: benchtop	$750.00	Repairs: benchtop
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,381.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,381.47

Order

Frances Marie Mather and Sasha Austin must pay Team Group Rentals Limited C & V Mcdougall $1,381.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (3111670-020) to Team Group Rentals Limited C & V Mcdougall immediately. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$100.00 Carpet Cleaning: stain removal$220.23 Rubbish removal$200.00 Repairs: damage to walls$1,771.00 Repairs: vinyl$100.00 Repairs: heat pump and remote$379.80 Repairs: benchtop$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,541.47 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,381.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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 testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [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 or 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.”
In summary, for the landlord to succeed in its claim, it must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has suffered loss through damage which occurred during the tenancy and that it was not caused by fair wear and tear.

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The entry inspection report showed that the property had been thoroughly cleaned at the start of the tenancy and was in very good condition.
The landlord’s evidence showed that the tenant had cleaned most of the property but there were some areas overlooked. It is appropriate to award the landlord part of the amount claimed to reflect what would be a reasonable sum to complete the work which the landlord’s evidence showed was left undone by the tenant.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that there was some rubbish remaining at the property. The landlord also claimed for clearing rubbish at a property over the road which the landlord believed was dumped there by the tenant.
There is no obligation on the tenant under the RTA to remove rubbish from anywhere but the rented property. This aspect of the landlord’s claim must fail. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction relates only to the rented premises. The tenant is responsible for the removal of the rubbish at the property and I have awarded the landlord an appropriate sum.
The landlord’s photographic evidence included photographs of staining to the carpet caused by spills. The tenant is responsible for the cost of having these stains removed.
The landlord gave evidence that the remote control for the heat pump was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is responsible for leaving all chattels provided at the start of the tenancy at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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.
The landlord explained that the property had been renovated just prior to the start of the tenancy and provided evidence of the state of the property at that time.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls of the stairwell and the lounge had been knocked and damaged. b. A storage cupboard door was damaged. c. A small area of vinyl had been torn. d. The outside heat pump unit’s grate was broken. e. The benchtop in the kitchen had suffered a number of gouges and marks.
The tenant accepted that she had caused the damage to the stairwell walls and the benchtop. The tenant denied liability for the other items. The tenant did not offer any evidence that contradicted the landlord’s photographic evidence and I accept the landlord’s submission that the damages were caused during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is appropriate to award the landlord the full and actual cost of the repairs to the stairwell, the lounge walls and the storage cupboard. Their nature and extent indicate a disregard for the damage being caused that amounted to intention.
The tenant is responsible for the careless damage to the vinyl. However, no receipt was provided for part of the materials and the invoice supplied was from the landlord. It is appropriate to award a modest amount for the repair.
The landlord is entitled to a replacement of the outside grill to the heat pump unit. This damage was careless at best and the amount awarded is less than the landlord’s insurance excess.
The landlord provided a quotation for the replacement of the benchtop from the company that installed it. The landlord’s insurance company is obtaining a further quote. The landlord has suffered some loss but the landlord has not yet adequately quantified that loss. While the landlord’s insurance company is claiming that the benchtop is three separate benchtops and so three separate excesses will apply, I am not satisfied that this is the correct approach for the Tribunal to adopt.
The tenant gave evidence that the damage occurred during a domestic incident and that the damage to the benchtop was not intentional and occurred during one event. I accept the tenant’s evidence and must therefore find that the damage was careless or accidental. The tenant’s liability is therefore limited to the landlord’s insurance excess.
As these items were new at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy lasted just seven months, it is not appropriate to deduct any amount for depreciation or betterment.
The tenant claimed that she did not have any opportunity to repair these items herself or have her own tradespeople repair them. The tenant’s obligation is to leave the property at the end of the tenancy with any damage repaired. The tenant did not do so. The landlord is entitled to have the repairs carried out by its tradespeople.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Team Group Rentals Limited C & V Mcdougall has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771957 — net $1,381.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: stain removal	$220.23	Carpet Cleaning: stain removal
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: damage to walls	$1,771.00	Repairs: damage to walls
Repairs: vinyl	$100.00	Repairs: vinyl
Repairs: heat pump and remote	$379.80	Repairs: heat pump and remote
Repairs: benchtop	$750.00	Repairs: benchtop
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,381.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,381.47

Order

Frances Marie Mather and Sasha Austin must pay Team Group Rentals Limited C & V Mcdougall $1,381.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (3111670-020) to Team Group Rentals Limited C & V Mcdougall immediately. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$100.00 Carpet Cleaning: stain removal$220.23 Rubbish removal$200.00 Repairs: damage to walls$1,771.00 Repairs: vinyl$100.00 Repairs: heat pump and remote$379.80 Repairs: benchtop$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,541.47 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,381.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
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 testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [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 or 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.”
In summary, for the landlord to succeed in its claim, it must prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has suffered loss through damage which occurred during the tenancy and that it was not caused by fair wear and tear.

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The entry inspection report showed that the property had been thoroughly cleaned at the start of the tenancy and was in very good condition.
The landlord’s evidence showed that the tenant had cleaned most of the property but there were some areas overlooked. It is appropriate to award the landlord part of the amount claimed to reflect what would be a reasonable sum to complete the work which the landlord’s evidence showed was left undone by the tenant.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that there was some rubbish remaining at the property. The landlord also claimed for clearing rubbish at a property over the road which the landlord believed was dumped there by the tenant.
There is no obligation on the tenant under the RTA to remove rubbish from anywhere but the rented property. This aspect of the landlord’s claim must fail. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction relates only to the rented premises. The tenant is responsible for the removal of the rubbish at the property and I have awarded the landlord an appropriate sum.
The landlord’s photographic evidence included photographs of staining to the carpet caused by spills. The tenant is responsible for the cost of having these stains removed.
The landlord gave evidence that the remote control for the heat pump was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is responsible for leaving all chattels provided at the start of the tenancy at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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.
The landlord explained that the property had been renovated just prior to the start of the tenancy and provided evidence of the state of the property at that time.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls of the stairwell and the lounge had been knocked and damaged. b. A storage cupboard door was damaged. c. A small area of vinyl had been torn. d. The outside heat pump unit’s grate was broken. e. The benchtop in the kitchen had suffered a number of gouges and marks.
The tenant accepted that she had caused the damage to the stairwell walls and the benchtop. The tenant denied liability for the other items. The tenant did not offer any evidence that contradicted the landlord’s photographic evidence and I accept the landlord’s submission that the damages were caused during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is appropriate to award the landlord the full and actual cost of the repairs to the stairwell, the lounge walls and the storage cupboard. Their nature and extent indicate a disregard for the damage being caused that amounted to intention.
The tenant is responsible for the careless damage to the vinyl. However, no receipt was provided for part of the materials and the invoice supplied was from the landlord. It is appropriate to award a modest amount for the repair.
The landlord is entitled to a replacement of the outside grill to the heat pump unit. This damage was careless at best and the amount awarded is less than the landlord’s insurance excess.
The landlord provided a quotation for the replacement of the benchtop from the company that installed it. The landlord’s insurance company is obtaining a further quote. The landlord has suffered some loss but the landlord has not yet adequately quantified that loss. While the landlord’s insurance company is claiming that the benchtop is three separate benchtops and so three separate excesses will apply, I am not satisfied that this is the correct approach for the Tribunal to adopt.
The tenant gave evidence that the damage occurred during a domestic incident and that the damage to the benchtop was not intentional and occurred during one event. I accept the tenant’s evidence and must therefore find that the damage was careless or accidental. The tenant’s liability is therefore limited to the landlord’s insurance excess.
As these items were new at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy lasted just seven months, it is not appropriate to deduct any amount for depreciation or betterment.
The tenant claimed that she did not have any opportunity to repair these items herself or have her own tradespeople repair them. The tenant’s obligation is to leave the property at the end of the tenancy with any damage repaired. The tenant did not do so. The landlord is entitled to have the repairs carried out by its tradespeople.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Team Group Rentals Limited C & V Mcdougall has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4771957 — Property damage at 11 Mahoe Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4771957 — Property damage at 11 Mahoe Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions