What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774799?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6384513-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4774799?

Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $530.97 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity - Lock: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity - wind…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774799?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457922-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774799?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6384513-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4774799?

Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $530.97 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity - Lock: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity - wind…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774799?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457922-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat B, 57 Corriedale Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774799 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774799 — net $695.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$165.00		t to pay $210.00 for the landlord’s cleaning, $120.97 for cleaning supplies and $165.00 for carpet cleaning. I consider $200.00 for commercial cleaning is reas…
Cleaning	$530.97		Cleaning
Compensation: Loss of amenity - lock	$50.00		e bathroom. The loss of amenity has been minor, and I order the landlord to pay $50.00 for that loss.
Compensation: Loss of amenity - window security stay	$50.00		e bathroom. The loss of amenity has been minor, and I order the landlord to pay $50.00 for that loss.
Repairs: Wall		$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Total award	$795.97	$100.00
Net award	$695.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$695.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774799 — net $695.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$165.00		t to pay $210.00 for the landlord’s cleaning, $120.97 for cleaning supplies and $165.00 for carpet cleaning. I consider $200.00 for commercial cleaning is reas…
Cleaning	$530.97		Cleaning
Compensation: Loss of amenity - lock	$50.00		e bathroom. The loss of amenity has been minor, and I order the landlord to pay $50.00 for that loss.
Compensation: Loss of amenity - window security stay	$50.00		e bathroom. The loss of amenity has been minor, and I order the landlord to pay $50.00 for that loss.
Repairs: Wall		$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Total award	$795.97	$100.00
Net award	$695.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$695.97

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6384513-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Trent James Watson and Bianca Hillary Sosa Watson: $695.97 Millie Crossman and Raymond Daphord Hemi: $1,624.03
By consent of the tenant, the landlord may destroy the remaining tenant belongings.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants attended by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation for failure to maintain, breach of healthy home standards as they relate to moisture and condensation and refund of the bond.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not and similarly, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and statements. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. Rent
The tenancy ended on 28 December 2023.The landlord says that a week’s rent remains outstanding. The tenants say that as they paid rent from the commencement of the tenancy a week in advance, no rent is owing. The tenancy agreement provides that rent is to be paid one week in advance.
No rent summary has been provided in evidence by the landlord. The burden of proving the claim rests on the landlord. I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the tenants owe a further week’s rent, and the claim is accordingly dismissed.

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

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 provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The premises are small at 50sqm.
The landlord provided extensive photos of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. I accept first of all that some cleaning was carried out by the tenants prior to the end of the tenancy. Secondly, the landlord said that the premises were relet to new tenants at the end of this tenancy. Very little cleaning was carried out before the commencement of the new tenancy, other than that which is claimed for. The landlord seeks compensation for 7 hours cleaning by the landlord at $30.00 per hour, $120.97 for cleaning supplies, $165.00 for carpet cleaning and $500.00 for commercial cleaning costs.
Given the size of the premises and the condition disclosed in the photos, I order the tenant to pay $210.00 for the landlord’s cleaning, $120.97 for cleaning supplies and $165.00 for carpet cleaning. I consider $200.00 for commercial cleaning is reasonable in the circumstances as disclosed by the evidence. This would have been sufficient to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

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 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. The landlord has insurance cover with an excess on each and every claim of $500.00.
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.
A wall was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepts liability for the damage. The landlord seeks $100.00 for the repair costs. I consider the claim to be reasonable.
The tenant consented to the destruction of any belongings remaining at the end of the tenancy. Tenant claims
The tenant’s claim for work orders is dismissed as the tenancy has ended. Failure to maintain and Healthy Homes
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the premises are in need of repair, the tenant is required to inform the landlord. The landlord then has a reasonable time within which to carry out the repairs.
The tenant says that the bathroom lock didn’t work. The landlord was advised. The landlord attempted repairs but found that the lock did work. The tenant said that the issue resulted in her getting locked into the bathroom on two occasions. In the circumstances, I consider that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenant in the use of the bathroom. The loss of amenity has been minor, and I order the landlord to pay $50.00 for that loss.
The tenant says that the security stays on the living room window didn’t work. The landlord was advised, but repairs were not carried out. The failure of the security stay meant that it was difficult to close the window in summer, meaning that the tenant kept the window closed at all times. The loss of amenity is minor. This was not a long tenancy. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $50.00 for the loss of amenity.
The tenant said that the extractor fan in the bathroom, and the condensation release in the windows did not work properly. The tenant accepted that they did not inform the landlord of the issues and accordingly no order is made, and those claims are dismissed. This also applies to the healthy homes claims regarding condensation. I do not consider given the limited evidence provided by the tenants, that the tenants have met the burden of proof required of them and the claims are dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. I do not consider that either party has been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the applications are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774799 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat B, 57 Corriedale Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774799 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat B, 57 Corriedale Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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