What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4777658?

The tribunal order states: Alan Hare and Karly Kapea must pay Home Rental Services Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4777658?

Cleaning: $193.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $132.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777658?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9977482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4777658?

The tribunal order states: Alan Hare and Karly Kapea must pay Home Rental Services Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4777658?

Cleaning: $193.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $132.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777658?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9977482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

67 Daphne Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777658 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777658 — net $479.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: reglaze dining room window	$132.25	Window repairs: reglaze dining room window
Carpet Cleaning	$193.20	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$103.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lawns and Garden work	$30.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$479.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$479.39

Order

Alan Hare and Karly Kapea must pay Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Peter Williamson $479.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Kristensen attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Neither of the tenants attended the hearing. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, failure to perform tenant responsibilities and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for exemplary damages.

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

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the house was freshly painted when the tenants moved in, but the property was left with fly marks on the ceilings, grease marks on the walls, a dirty oven, stickers on the walls, a toilet with urine, splattered cleaning product on the wall, curtains which needed to be washed and rehung. The landlord provided some photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. For the most part, from the photographs provided the property appeared to have been left reasonably clean and tidy. There were no remaining belongings or furniture or rubbish of the tenants in the photographs and the carpet appeared to have been vacuumed. The photograph of the oven showed it had been left somewhat grimy. It was difficult to see the condition of the toilet from the photograph provided. The grease marks on the walls looked mostly slight, though two stickers on the walls were evident in the photographs.
The landlord provided an invoice from a cleaning service, which did not contain the cleaning service’s name or a date on the invoice. Ms Kristensen said the cleaning service was contracted through her company and cleaned at the property on the weekend of 25 & 26 November 2023. The narrative of the cleaning service invoice was that they cleaned all the ceilings and walls at the property, cleaned the oven, stovetop and toilet and washed and rehung the curtains. The landlord claimed $620.00 for the cleaning but did not know the time taken for the cleaning, nor the cleaner’s hourly rate.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I find that, for the most part, the tenants left the property reasonably clean and tidy, apart from the oven, the 2 stickers on the walls and likely the toilet. I find that 2 hours of cleaning at $45.00 per hour, which I consider a reasonable rate for cleaning, for a total of $90.00 plus GST of $13.50 is sufficient to cover the cleaning of the oven and toilet and remove the stickers on the walls. Therefore, I award the landlord $103.50 for the cleaning required to bring the property to the standard of the tenant’s obligation to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Grass clippings
The landlord further claimed that the tenants did not remove grass clippings from the garden by the end of the tenancy, which they were obligated to do. The Tenancy Agreement provided for the tenants to maintain the lawns and gardens and keep them free from any rubbish. As such, I find is likely, given the photograph provided by the landlord of the remaining grass clippings that the tenants did not remove these when they should have. The landlord claimed $30.00 and provided an invoice from a garden service for removing the clippings. I find this to be reasonable in the circumstances and award the landlord $30.00 to remove the grass clippings left at the end of the tenancy. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claimed that the carpet smelled strongly of dogs at the end of the tenancy, whereas the tenants had not been allowed dogs at the property. Ms Kristensen said she had sighted a dog at the property at the final inspection. She further pointed to stains on the carpets, which needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy and provided photographs of these. It was difficult to see many stains in the carpet photographs, though some carpet areas appeared somewhat darker. Given the evidence provided, I find it likely that the carpet needed to be deodorised and it may have been likely some carpet stains needed treating. The landlord claimed $193.20 for carpet cleaning and deodorising, which I find to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. Therefore, I award the landlord $193.20 for carpet cleaning.
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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Hole in the wardrobe a. The landlord said the tenants made a hole in the interior of the fixed wardrobe in one of the bedrooms, the size of a fist. Ms Kristensen did not know how this occurred, nor were any photographs of this damage provided by the landlord. The landlord claimed $90.00 for the hole to be gibbed. As the landlord has not provided any photographs or other additional evidence to prove this claim, I find the landlord has not reached the threshold of proving this damage likely occurred and so dismiss this claim. Windowpane b. The landlord said a windowpane in one of the dining room windows was missing at the end of the tenancy, which had been present during her earlier inspection in July 2023. The landlord provided a photograph of the missing window and said the tenants had agreed to replace it but had not. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. Given this, the tenants are liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. c. Whilst no specific evidence was introduced about the age or condition of the windowpane, from photographs introduced into evidence, I find this item would have exceeded its lifespan of around 3 years. However, I also accept that the windowpane was nevertheless likely in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. The landlord has claimed to replace one windowpane, not the entire window, at a cost of $132.25, which I find to be reasonable in the circumstances and so I do not depreciate this. Given this is much less than the insurance excess of $700.00, I find it reasonable to award the landlord $132.25 to replace one windowpane. d. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Peter Williamson has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed they did not want suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777658 — net $479.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: reglaze dining room window	$132.25	Window repairs: reglaze dining room window
Carpet Cleaning	$193.20	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$103.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lawns and Garden work	$30.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$479.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$479.39

Order

Alan Hare and Karly Kapea must pay Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Peter Williamson $479.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Kristensen attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Neither of the tenants attended the hearing. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, failure to perform tenant responsibilities and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for exemplary damages.

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

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the house was freshly painted when the tenants moved in, but the property was left with fly marks on the ceilings, grease marks on the walls, a dirty oven, stickers on the walls, a toilet with urine, splattered cleaning product on the wall, curtains which needed to be washed and rehung. The landlord provided some photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. For the most part, from the photographs provided the property appeared to have been left reasonably clean and tidy. There were no remaining belongings or furniture or rubbish of the tenants in the photographs and the carpet appeared to have been vacuumed. The photograph of the oven showed it had been left somewhat grimy. It was difficult to see the condition of the toilet from the photograph provided. The grease marks on the walls looked mostly slight, though two stickers on the walls were evident in the photographs.
The landlord provided an invoice from a cleaning service, which did not contain the cleaning service’s name or a date on the invoice. Ms Kristensen said the cleaning service was contracted through her company and cleaned at the property on the weekend of 25 & 26 November 2023. The narrative of the cleaning service invoice was that they cleaned all the ceilings and walls at the property, cleaned the oven, stovetop and toilet and washed and rehung the curtains. The landlord claimed $620.00 for the cleaning but did not know the time taken for the cleaning, nor the cleaner’s hourly rate.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I find that, for the most part, the tenants left the property reasonably clean and tidy, apart from the oven, the 2 stickers on the walls and likely the toilet. I find that 2 hours of cleaning at $45.00 per hour, which I consider a reasonable rate for cleaning, for a total of $90.00 plus GST of $13.50 is sufficient to cover the cleaning of the oven and toilet and remove the stickers on the walls. Therefore, I award the landlord $103.50 for the cleaning required to bring the property to the standard of the tenant’s obligation to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Grass clippings
The landlord further claimed that the tenants did not remove grass clippings from the garden by the end of the tenancy, which they were obligated to do. The Tenancy Agreement provided for the tenants to maintain the lawns and gardens and keep them free from any rubbish. As such, I find is likely, given the photograph provided by the landlord of the remaining grass clippings that the tenants did not remove these when they should have. The landlord claimed $30.00 and provided an invoice from a garden service for removing the clippings. I find this to be reasonable in the circumstances and award the landlord $30.00 to remove the grass clippings left at the end of the tenancy. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claimed that the carpet smelled strongly of dogs at the end of the tenancy, whereas the tenants had not been allowed dogs at the property. Ms Kristensen said she had sighted a dog at the property at the final inspection. She further pointed to stains on the carpets, which needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy and provided photographs of these. It was difficult to see many stains in the carpet photographs, though some carpet areas appeared somewhat darker. Given the evidence provided, I find it likely that the carpet needed to be deodorised and it may have been likely some carpet stains needed treating. The landlord claimed $193.20 for carpet cleaning and deodorising, which I find to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. Therefore, I award the landlord $193.20 for carpet cleaning.
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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Hole in the wardrobe a. The landlord said the tenants made a hole in the interior of the fixed wardrobe in one of the bedrooms, the size of a fist. Ms Kristensen did not know how this occurred, nor were any photographs of this damage provided by the landlord. The landlord claimed $90.00 for the hole to be gibbed. As the landlord has not provided any photographs or other additional evidence to prove this claim, I find the landlord has not reached the threshold of proving this damage likely occurred and so dismiss this claim. Windowpane b. The landlord said a windowpane in one of the dining room windows was missing at the end of the tenancy, which had been present during her earlier inspection in July 2023. The landlord provided a photograph of the missing window and said the tenants had agreed to replace it but had not. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. Given this, the tenants are liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. c. Whilst no specific evidence was introduced about the age or condition of the windowpane, from photographs introduced into evidence, I find this item would have exceeded its lifespan of around 3 years. However, I also accept that the windowpane was nevertheless likely in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. The landlord has claimed to replace one windowpane, not the entire window, at a cost of $132.25, which I find to be reasonable in the circumstances and so I do not depreciate this. Given this is much less than the insurance excess of $700.00, I find it reasonable to award the landlord $132.25 to replace one windowpane. d. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Peter Williamson has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed they did not want suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777658 — Cleanliness at 67 Daphne Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777658 — Cleanliness at 67 Daphne Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions