What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800130?

The tribunal order states: Kishan Singh and Yen Nguyen to pay Trang Nhu Ha $611.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4800130?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $148.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800130?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10407765-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800130?

The tribunal order states: Kishan Singh and Yen Nguyen to pay Trang Nhu Ha $611.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4800130?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $148.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800130?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10407765-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 29 Draper Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800130 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800130 — net $611.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$150.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Cleaning: Under fridge and in kitchen cupboard	$80.00	Cleaning: Under fridge and in kitchen cupboard
Rubbish removal	$20.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Living room wall damage	$192.50	Repairs: Living room wall damage
Repairs: Damage to wall from air fryer	$148.50	Repairs: Damage to wall from air fryer
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$611.44
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$611.44

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Singh represented the tenants.

Mr Kim (the landlord’s husband) also attended to speak on behalf of Ms Nhu Ha with the Tribunal’s approval.

The parties provided information and evidence which has been considered when making this order even if it has not been specifically referred to.

The tenant applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

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 and remove all rubbish under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and did not remove all rubbish.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord completed an inspection of the property and emailed the tenants to let them know that some areas were not cleaned sufficiently and that there was some damage to the property.

The landlord had received a quote for the cleaning costs and the tenant accepted that some additional cleaning was needed but thought the quote was too high and asked to negotiate the amount.

Thinking the tenant wanted to negotiate with the cleaning company, the landlord sent the tenant the company contact details.

The tenant was returning to the property at the landlord’s request to collect some abandoned whiteware that had been left outside the property and the parties inspected the property together at that time.

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant then agreed to certain charges but that he had not contacted the cleaner as she had expected. The landlord had told the cleaner to expect to hear from the tenant to negotiate the amount quoted and, when the cleaner had not heard from him, she had cancelled the booking.

As a consequence, the landlord could not arrange another cleaning company to complete the cleaning before the new tenant moved in so had to do it herself (with Mr Kim’s help). The landlords thought the tenants had accepted the costs for cleaning and some other matters and the landlord is claiming the original quoted amount.

The landlords also provided the tribunal with a generic estimate from a cleaning company which confirmed that the quoted amount was reasonable and estimated between $100 to $200 for oven cleaning depending on cleaning required.

The tenant accepted that he had not cleaned the oven. He also accepted that he had forgotten to clean under the fridge and, during the hearing, accepted that he had not cleaned inside one kitchen cupboard properly. These were matters for which the landlord photographic evidence.

The oven was very dirty and would have required significant time to clean. The other matters were more minor, but the landlord gave evidence that the stain in the kitchen cupboard was very difficult to remove and the tenant accepted responsibility for that.

The landlord said it required over eight hours to clean the whole property (including the work accepted by the tenant as above). The landlord did not have any photographs or invoices to support the claim for compensation for cleaning the remainder of the premises.

The tenants said the remainder of the house was left reasonably clean and tidy.

I am not able to award compensation for cleaning with no supporting evidence, such as invoices or photographs to show that the property required additional cleaning to be brought up to a reasonable standard.

The tenants accepted the claim for $20.00 for rubbish removal.

The amounts ordered for the oven, floor under the fridge, kitchen cupboard and rubbish removal are accepted or proved.

The landlord also claimed for professional carpet cleaning.

The tenancy included at least one inside cat. The landlord said she would not have allowed a cat unless the tenants had agreed to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

There was no evidence that the carpet required professional cleaning and it is beyond what the Act expects of tenants vacating a rental property so that claim 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.

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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.

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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).

The tenants accepted that they had removed a wall hook which had resulted in damage to the living room wall requiring plastering, sanding and repainting. The amount quoted for the repair was $300.00.

The tenants disputed the amount claimed.

The tenant also accepted that their air fryer had caused damage to a painted wall in the kitchen. The amount quoted for the repair was $247.00.

The tenants disputed that they should be responsible for this as they said they had not noticed it until it had been brought to their attention by the landlord at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has not attended to these repairs as she wanted to wait for the outcome of this hearing. The new tenant has already moved in, so she did not consider the repairs urgent.

The photographs provided by the landlord show the damage as described. The damage to the living room wall is obvious and requires repair. The damage to the kitchen wall is less obvious but it is clear that the paintwork has been affected by the close proximity of the air fryer.

The landlord considers that the tenants should have been more careful with the air fryer and pulled further out from the wall when using it.

I agree that the tenants should have taken more care that the air fryer did not damage the wall.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage from both the air fryer and the removal of the hook.

The quote covering both repairs included one full day of labour. I consider this excessive for these minor repairs and have reduced the labour component of each amount awarded accordingly.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord also claimed for repairs to a kitchen skirting. This skirting was beside the fridge and would have been inaccessible during the tenancy.

The landlord considered that it was likely damaged due to carelessness removing or installing the fridge.

I consider that this damage is more likely fair wear and tear due to the heat or moisture from the fridge itself and the kitchen in general.

The tenant had no knowledge of it and there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the damage was due to carelessness on the part of the tenant, so this claim is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee

Kishan Singh and Yen Nguyen requested name suppression in their application.

A party must be granted name suppression if they have been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful, so name suppression is not granted.

As the landlord has partly succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800130 — net $611.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$150.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Cleaning: Under fridge and in kitchen cupboard	$80.00	Cleaning: Under fridge and in kitchen cupboard
Rubbish removal	$20.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Living room wall damage	$192.50	Repairs: Living room wall damage
Repairs: Damage to wall from air fryer	$148.50	Repairs: Damage to wall from air fryer
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$611.44
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$611.44