What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799339 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4799339?

Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799339?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10270015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799339 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4799339?

Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799339?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10270015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Raeble Walkington Lane, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799339 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799339 — net $175.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged ceiling edge	$175.00	Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged ceiling edge
Net award	$175.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$175.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799339 — net $175.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged ceiling edge	$175.00	Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged ceiling edge
Net award	$175.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$175.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details
[The tenant/s] to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $175.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The following claims are withdrawn at the request of the landlord: rent arrears of $185.71; cleaning costs of $200; replacement blind costs of $294.65; owner’s compensation of $200.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentcare Property Management Limited: $175.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,425.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Whitty representing the landlord. Background
The tenant filed an application on 4 February 2024 for refund of the bond as the landlord had not released the bond following the tenancy ending on 15 December 2023.
The landlord filed a cross application on 1 March 2024 seeking compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Bond money belongs to the tenant and must be returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. Where the landlord has a claim against the bond, the onus is on the landlord to prove their claim. For that reason, while the tenant filed his application first, I asked the landlord to present their claims first and discharge their onus of proof.
I record that the landlord made several claims against the tenant which were immediately withdrawn at the hearing. It appears that this is because the claims could not be proved or justified. Certainly, the claim simply entitled “owner’s compensation” would be unlikely to succeed. Mr Whitty said that the owners were seeking compensation for work done on the weekend after the tenant vacated. However, it is noted that a new tenancy commenced on 16 December 2023 (the day after this tenant vacated). Therefore, it is difficult to see that this would be a valid claim.
At the hearing, Mr Whitty also advised that in respect of the remaining claims the landlord was seeking less than the amounts claimed in the application. The landlord should ensure in future that any claims are stated accurately so that tenants are not misled about any compensation claims against them.
The premises are newly constructed, and this was the first tenancy of the premises which started on 15 December 2022. The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023 after the tenant gave notice. On the advice and instructions of the landlord, the tenant arranged for contractors to attend the premises on the final day of the tenancy to complete interior cleaning, including carpet cleaning, and other contractors to tidy the section. The tenant had been permitted to keep a dog at the property and, on that basis, the landlord asked for the carpets to be professionally cleaned. The tenant emailed a copy of the invoices he paid to the landlord as proof of the work done. He also included photos taken of the garden after the weeding and tidying work was done.
Despite the work arranged by the tenant, the landlord had their own carpet cleaners enter the premises immediately following the tenant’s cleaners leaving on the last day of the tenancy to redo the carpets. A few days later, the landlord’s employees carried out further gardening work and repairs to the ceiling in the hallway.
Notably, the landlord had arranged for a new tenancy to start the day after this tenancy ended, so was likely under some pressure to ensure the premises were ready for the next tenant.

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).
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Section tidy
The tenancy agreement confirms that the tenant is responsible for the lawns and garden. The landlord claims that the section was not left reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy and seeks one half the cost of an invoice it generated for this work totalling $554.59. Half that cost is $277.30. The tenant disputes any liability for this cost because he says the section was tidied by his contractor to a reasonable condition.
The invoice for this work was generated by the landlord, Rentcare Property Management Limited (Rentcare) trading as Buildcare. Therefore, the company doing the work and the property manager/landlord are one and the same, using different trade names for the different activities undertaken. Employees of Rentcare did the work.
The reason for claiming half the costs is because the landlord acknowledged that the tenant was not responsible for some of the work on the invoice described as hosing down the exterior driveway and paths to get rid of debris. The remaining items on the invoice included “section tidy” and “front garden needs a serious weed and potentially re-barking”. Photos were produced in evidence of the front garden and the back lawn. The landlord says these photos were taken at an inspection on the last day of the tenancy at 5:16pm. I accept that the photos were taken before the tenant’s contractor arrived to tidy the section an hour or so later.
I asked Mr Whitty at the hearing why the invoice refers to “potentially re-barking” and whether that was done. He maintains that it was. Mr Whitty also asked me to take into account the patchy state of the back lawn which he says was caused by the tenant’s dog urinating on the lawn such that it needed resowing. However, the invoice does not include the costs of any bark or grass seed and nor does it say that the garden was re-barked or the back lawn was re-sown. Furthermore, the inspection report completed that day by 5:16pm says regarding the exterior: “....Front part by mailbox very overgrown. Back patio is fine.” There is no mention of the back lawn needing attention. Mr Whitty was also unable to advise of the cost breakdown and what proportion of the invoice relates to the items for which the landlord seeks reimbursement from the tenant.
The tenant produced photos of the section after his contractor tidied it. He also produced his text messages to the property manager, Ms Farmer, enclosing these photos sent at 8:12 pm. His text reads: “The yard just done by the professional as well. If there is anything not satisfied with the house please let me know and I will ask someone I trust to do it...” He received no response.
After reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant tidied the garden and grounds to a reasonable standard and is not liable for any further section work. I also consider that had the landlord been dissatisfied with the work carried out by the tenant, it was incumbent on them to let the tenant know, given that he had sent them photos of the section and requested confirmation that it was satisfactory on the last day of the tenancy. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims that the carpet cleaning arranged by the tenant on the last day of the tenancy did not remove the dog smell. They arranged for further carpet cleaning and claim the costs from the tenant.
The tenant’s cleaners arrived at 1pm on the last day of the tenancy and indicated it would take at least 4 hours. The tenant contacted Ms Farmer and suggested she carry out an inspection after the cleaning was finished. However, she indicated that she would arrive earlier at 4pm and it didn’t matter if the cleaners were still there. The tenant advised that he could not be there until later.
Ms Farmer gave evidence (by telephone) that she arrived at the premises sometime after 4pm. Two cleaners engaged by the tenant were present. The cleaners confirmed to her that the carpets had been cleaned and they were continuing with other work. Ms Farmer says that two bedrooms still had a bad dog smell and she believed they needed further deodorising and cleaning. She reported this to her manager, Mr Whitty and left the property after taking inspection photos at 5.16pm. She also says that she advised the tenant about the smell and a need for further carpet cleaning. She says that she likely told him about this when he called her at 5.44 pm (as evidenced by the tenant’s phone records). However, the landlord went ahead and booked cleaners to redo the carpets as they believed there was not time for the tenant to remedy the situation.
The tenant denies that Ms Farmer informed him of any problem with the carpet cleaning. He arrived back to the property and found another cleaning crew at the premises. He asked them why they were there and was informed that they had been instructed by Mr Whitty to do further cleaning including the carpets. The tenant advised that the carpets had been cleaned which the crew acknowledged as they were still damp to the touch. One of the crew then rang Mr Whitty to check whether the work was needed and advised the tenant that Mr Whitty told them not to worry about it and to clean the carpet again.
The tenant then rang Ms Farmer at 5.44pm to ask what was going on. He says that she confirmed that she had just left the premises. She advised that she did not know that a second cleaning crew had been arranged without the tenant’s permission and that she would contact Mr Whitty to find out what was happening. The tenant says that Ms Farmer did not tell him that the carpets smelt bad and needed re-doing.
There is a complete conflict of evidence between Ms Farmer and the tenant about their oral exchanges that day. However, based on the text messages between the parties, I note that the landlord did not record any carpet cleaning problem in writing to the tenant. Therefore, the landlord is unable to prove with reasonable supporting evidence that Ms Farmer told the tenant that the carpets still smelt. Even the property inspection report Ms Farmer completed does not mention the issue simply stating: “Carpets have been professionally cleaned.”
Regardless of whether the carpets required further cleaning, I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord arranged further cleaning on the last day of the tenancy without the tenant’s permission and without giving the tenant an opportunity to address any issues. In addition to his telephone inquiry with Ms farmer at 5.44pm, the tenant sent three text messages to Ms Farmer at 6.11pm,
12pm and 8.54pm that evening enclosing invoices for the cleaning; asking her to advise if there was anything she was not satisfied with; indicating that if so, he would find someone to remedy any issues; and recording that he did not know why the second cleaning crew had been sent to the premises by Mr Whitty. Ms Farmer did not respond outlining any problems and merely sent a text saying: “Thank you for your message. Management will be in touch on Monday. Have a lovely weekend.”
Because this was the last day of the tenancy for which rent had been paid, I find that the landlord had no right to send a second cleaning crew without first obtaining the tenants’ consent and without first giving him an opportunity to address any issues. The fact that a second cleaning crew were already lined up at the premises to do further work as soon as the tenant’s cleaners left and before the tenant was advised, demonstrates a lack of good faith on the landlord’s part.
In summary, I am satisfied that the tenant cleaned the carpets; he was not clearly advised by the landlord that there was any problem with the carpet cleaning nor given an opportunity to remedy. It was not open to the landlord to merely engage cleaners on the last day of the tenancy without the tenant’s permission and then expect him to cover the cost. If the landlord had explained the problem, the tenant may have been able to arrange for his cleaners to redo the carpet.
For the reasons given, the claim for carpet cleaning is 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 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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: an area of the ceiling in the hallway was damaged. The tenant acknowledged that this probably happened when shifting out furniture. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord seeks repair costs for plastering and painting the area of $400.50. The invoice for the work has been prepared by BuildCare 2023 Limited, a company of which Mr Whitty is the sole director and shareholder. I consider the amount claimed is excessive on the basis that the amount charged is not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. The hourly rate charged of $97.50 plus GST is excessive for the nature of the work and beyond the usual commercial rates. In addition, the total amount charged appears out of proportion and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amount charged accordingly.
The landlord has included in their invoice charges for materials of $153.83 plus GST with no breakdown of the materials. In addition, travel costs of $35 plus GST and a health and safety fee of $8.50 plus GST have been charged which I consider unreasonable. The amount I have awarded is inclusive of any and all expenses that might reasonably be charged including labour, materials, and travel.
I note that I have previously advised the landlord that the amounts they (or their associated companies) charge for maintenance and repairs is excessive and beyond reasonable commercial rates.
As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with their claims, they are not entitled to suppression orders. Although there is a small award against the tenant, he has otherwise substantially defended the claims against him, and I consider it appropriate to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details. In the circumstances, neither party is awarded reimbursement of the filing fee as I consider those costs should fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799339 — Property damage at 9 Raeble Walkington Lane, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799339 — Property damage at 9 Raeble Walkington Lane, Wallaceville, Upper Hutt 5018

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