What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782618 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4782618?

Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,357.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782618?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10420869-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782618 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4782618?

Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,357.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782618?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10420869-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3J, 16 Market Place, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782618 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782618. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 January 2024	$1,357.14		Rent arrears to 9 January 2024
damage to couch	$75.00		damage to couch

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gang represented the landlord. The tenant appeared with her partner as a support person.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

This claim concerns the tenancy of a one-bedroom apartment located in Auckland Central. This is a claim by the landlord and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records proving that the rent was in arrears in the amount of $1,432.14 at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted that the arrears were owing and so I order payment of the arrears by consent.

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 (“RTA”). General cleaning

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Ms Gang said that on the move-out day she turned up to inspect the property to find the tenants still cleaning. She said that she spent some time helping them, and then returned at 9am the next day only to find that the property was not completely clean.

The landlord produced various close-up photos of areas in the apartment, particularly of the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards, toilet and behind the vanity.

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $235.75 for cleaning.

The tenant said that the property was not very clean when she moved in but that she cleaned it, and that she and her partner did their best to clean it when they left. She said that she had paid for professional carpet cleaning (as stipulated in the tenancy agreement) and produced an invoice dated the last day of the tenancy for $180.00. She also produced photos at the hearing showing the condition of the property on move out day.

At the end of a tenancy the property does not need to be left in perfect condition and ready for a new tenant to move into. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies. Nor does the property need to be perfectly clean and tidy in every respect. It only needs to be reasonably clean and tidy overall.

Having reviewed all of the evidence I find that the tenant left the property reasonably clean and tidy. The photos produced by the tenant show the property to have been left reasonably clean and tidy overall, despite the small areas where some minor additional cleaning might have been required. Mattress and mattress protector

The landlord said that there were stains on the mattress and mattress protector at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $178.25 for the cost of cleaning the mattress and purchasing a new mattress protector.

The landlord provided photos following the end of the mattress and protector at the end of the tenancy but not at the beginning of the tenancy.

The tenant said that rent was originally $450 per week but the landlord said that they would furnish the property for an additional $25 per week. She said that when the bed turned up it was already stained, and that she removed the mattress protector and never used it for this reason.

I do not find this claim proven. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the condition of the mattress at the start of the tenancy (or on the date that the bed was received by the tenant) and so I there is no way for me to assess the condition of the mattress and protector at the outset.

The landlord’s claims for cleaning are dismissed.

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. Carpet

The landlord says that the tenant’s dog caused damage to the carpet. The landlord produced photos showing a hole in the carpet, which appears from the photos to be an area of missing carpet approximately 5cm/5cm across.

The landlord produced a quote from in the amount of $2,530 from The Maintenance Guys to replace the carpet. However I was told that the landlord has not in fact replaced the carpet and new tenants have moved in. I was also told that the landlord does not have insurance beyond the usual body corporate insurance.

At the hearing I explained to Ms Gang that I was not prepared to order compensation on the basis of a quotation when the landlord has not in fact done the work claimed for. I did offer Ms Gang the opportunity to adjourn this part of the claim for the filing of further evidence when the work has been completed. However it appears that the carpet has been in the apartment since at least 2017 (and likely longer), and so no compensation would be recoverable in any event. The IRD depreciation schedules estimate that carpet only has a useful life of 8 years so even if proven no award would be made give the age of the carpet. Sofa

The landlord included a grey two-seater sofa as part of the chattels provided.

The landlord said that they purchased the sofa second-hand and that it was in good condition, but at the end of the tenancy it was stained and had pulled threads from the tenant’s dog. The landlord produced photos from the end of the tenancy showing stains and pulled threads but had no photos showing the condition of the sofa at the outset.

The landlord has claimed the cost and installation of a new sofa, in the amount of $799.00.

The tenant said that the sofa was stained to start with and that she just turned the cushions over. She explained that most of the time she kept a cover over the top as it looked better. She did however concede that her dog would have added to the staining and was responsible for the pulled threads.

I do not know the age of the sofa but note that the IRD schedules estimate furniture to have an estimated life span of 10 years. The sofa was not new to start with and so the tenant should not be responsible for the cost of a new sofa, particularly as the landlord has not proven that all of the damage was caused by the tenant..

On reviewing the photos and hearing from the parties I consider that the tenant should be liable for the additional damage caused by her dog, which I estimate to be approximately $75.00. I order payment accordingly. Waste disposal

The landlord said that after the tenants left there was a problem with the waste disposal. A contractor was sent to investigate the cause (and at the same time installed a new fridge). The landlord only claimed the portion of the invoice for the repair of the waste disposal unit, which was $160.00. The invoice states “waste disposer unit had stuff stuck inside of it. Cleared waste disposer tested ok”.

The tenant said that there were no problems with waste disposal unit except for an issue experienced last year. She said that a contractor attended and extracted some metal which was stuck in the unit, and she paid for the repair. She said there were no other issues.

After reviewing the evidence I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the tenant has damaged or caused any issue with the waste disposal unit. I also note that the invoice records that the repairs were completed on 16 January 2024, one week after the tenants moved out and five or six days after new tenants moved in. It is possible that the issue was cause by the new tenants.

In my view the tenant has been the more successful party, as she accepted the rent arrears and some damage to the sofa, and the landlord has not proven the balance of their claims. I have therefore not refunded the filing fee.

The tenant requested name suppression at the hearing and I grant that request pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782618. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 January 2024	$1,357.14		Rent arrears to 9 January 2024
damage to couch	$75.00		damage to couch

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gang represented the landlord. The tenant appeared with her partner as a support person.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

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

The landlord produced various close-up photos of areas in the apartment, particularly of the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards, toilet and behind the vanity.

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $235.75 for cleaning.

The landlord provided photos following the end of the mattress and protector at the end of the tenancy but not at the beginning of the tenancy.

The landlord’s claims for cleaning are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord included a grey two-seater sofa as part of the chattels provided.

The landlord has claimed the cost and installation of a new sofa, in the amount of $799.00.

The tenant requested name suppression at the hearing and I grant that request pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782618 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3J, 16 Market Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782618 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3J, 16 Market Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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