What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4775659 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,540.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4775659?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775659?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10436396-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4775659 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,540.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4775659?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775659?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10436396-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Sapling Drive, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4775659 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4775659 — net $1,540.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$920.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Front door	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,540.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person. The tenants attended via video link.

This is a cross application. The landlord has applied for rubbish removal, repair work and cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy. The tenants dispute the landlord’s claim and seek to have the bond refunded.

This was a tenancy of 4.5 years. The tenants lived in the property with their children. At times 8 people would be living in the property. The property is a 4- bedroom brick family home on a reasonable sized section.

The tenancy ended after the tenants gave 28 days’ notice to the landlord.

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, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants dispute this they say that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy and that they worked through the property two weeks before the tenancy ended cleaning walls and cupboards, and windows.

Both parties submitted photographs that supported their positions.

The Tenants obligation is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and free from rubbish. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4

What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” 5

Having considered all of the evidence given, I am satisfied that the tenants did undertake some cleaning of the property, but nevertheless there were items that were missed and were not left reasonably clean, this included fly dirt on the ceilings, marks on the walls, and some cupboards and the rangehood were not left in a reasonable condition. The tiled floors also needed cleaning.

Taking into account the nature and extent of cleaning needed to remedy the breach I award the landlord $450.00 for cleaning.

I am satisfied that the tenant should pay for the rubbish removal of the pamphlets and debris left at the back of the section. The tenant agreed to pay this cost (which the landlord told the tenant would be $800 plus GST in an email of the 11 December 2023) $920.00 inclusive of GST is the same as $800 plus GST. The tenant accepted that they had dumped the rubbish at the back of the 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 5 As above at (4) section and that it needed to be removed. The tenant agreed to pay the cost. The amount sought is awarded.

I am not satisfied that the tenant should pay for the additional rubbish removal, which was charged by the landlord’s maintenance person. I say this because the pile that was removed included the old kitchen cupboards and drawers, which the landlord was liable for repair of. It is not clear what items were the tenants and what items was the landlords. In any case the landlord did not mitigate its loss, it could have, and should have had all the tenant’s rubbish removed when its contractors came to do the rubbish removal that the tenant agreed to pay for.

I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the keys and the landlord had to install a new lock in the front door.

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 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.

The landlord withdrew claims for damage to the letter box and the gate at today’s hearing. The remainder of the items sought were set out in an invoice dated 24 November 2023. I have already dealt with the lock for the front door.

The remaining items claimed by the landlord, I consider are items caused by fair wear and tear and the tenant is not liable for those. I say this because: • Some of the property is noted as damaged in the tenants completed ingoing inspection. • The age of the property means that I would expect that there would damage to hinges or cupboard runners that would require some maintenance. • The tenants told me that there were ongoing problems with the laundry door locking mechanism which was notified to the landlord. I do not consider that the tenant caused that damage, I consider it was likely to be a problem with the lock itself. I noted that it required replacement. Filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee to the landlord. Name suppression.

The tenants have been successful in their defence of the maintenance items, and some of the cleaning costs and rubbish removal costs. The tenant’s have asked for name suppression and as they have been successful in those claims I award the tenant name suppression.

I also suppress the landlord’s name because they too have been successful.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4775659 — net $1,540.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$920.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: Front door	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,540.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person. The tenants attended via video link.

The tenancy ended after the tenants gave 28 days’ notice to the landlord.

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

Both parties submitted photographs that supported their positions.

What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” 5

Taking into account the nature and extent of cleaning needed to remedy the breach I award the landlord $450.00 for cleaning.

I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the keys and the landlord had to install a new lock in the front door.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee to the landlord. Name suppression.

I also suppress the landlord’s name because they too have been successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775659 — Cleanliness at 15 Sapling Drive, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775659 — Cleanliness at 15 Sapling Drive, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

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