What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4805858?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Emma Hulse must pay Michael

How much money was awarded in case 4805858?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4805858?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4805858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426662-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4805858?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Emma Hulse must pay Michael

How much money was awarded in case 4805858?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4805858?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4805858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426662-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 37 Uppingham Crescent, Hillcrest, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4805858 — Cleanliness

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Emma Hulse must pay Michael Georg Arand and Stephanie Claire Arand $20.44, being the filing fee, immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (6448803-008) to Michael Georg Arand and Stephanie Claire Arand immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Staining to the carpet in the lounge and the stairs.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord says the cause is bleaching from floor cleaner used on the tiles next to the stairs. The tenant says the damage is more likely related to flooding under the floor in Cyclone Gabrielle.
Both parties provided opinions from carpet specialists in support of their positions. The landlord’s evidence relies on the floors being cleaned with a bleach based product.
The tenant also gave evidence that they cleaned the tiles with Ecostore products and provided confirmation from the manufacturer that this product does not contain bleach.
The tenant also undertook a number of tests as the impact of bleach on carpet and could not replicate the damage.
Further, there is evidence that the tenants raised this issue with the landlord following the flooding in January 2023, when they noticed the discolouration. The landlord took no steps to investigate the cause of the damage or mitigate their alleged loss. This is despite the submission that repeatedly cleaning the tiles with bleach and damaging the carpet amounts to intentional damage (in reliance on Korck)
I accept the tenant’s evidence that they use Ecostore floor cleaning products, and I accept their evidence that the tiles upstairs are cleaned with the same floor cleaner. However, the carpet upstairs has not discoloured in the same way.
I accept the evidence that Ecostore products do not contain bleach.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the tenants caused the damage to the carpet carelessly or intentionally. Or to put it another way, the tenants have disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee
Because Michael Georg Arand, Stephanie Claire Arand has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants did not seek suppression.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Emma Hulse must pay Michael Georg Arand and Stephanie Claire Arand $20.44, being the filing fee, immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (6448803-008) to Michael Georg Arand and Stephanie Claire Arand immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Staining to the carpet in the lounge and the stairs.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord says the cause is bleaching from floor cleaner used on the tiles next to the stairs. The tenant says the damage is more likely related to flooding under the floor in Cyclone Gabrielle.
Both parties provided opinions from carpet specialists in support of their positions. The landlord’s evidence relies on the floors being cleaned with a bleach based product.
The tenant also gave evidence that they cleaned the tiles with Ecostore products and provided confirmation from the manufacturer that this product does not contain bleach.
The tenant also undertook a number of tests as the impact of bleach on carpet and could not replicate the damage.
Further, there is evidence that the tenants raised this issue with the landlord following the flooding in January 2023, when they noticed the discolouration. The landlord took no steps to investigate the cause of the damage or mitigate their alleged loss. This is despite the submission that repeatedly cleaning the tiles with bleach and damaging the carpet amounts to intentional damage (in reliance on Korck)
I accept the tenant’s evidence that they use Ecostore floor cleaning products, and I accept their evidence that the tiles upstairs are cleaned with the same floor cleaner. However, the carpet upstairs has not discoloured in the same way.
I accept the evidence that Ecostore products do not contain bleach.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the tenants caused the damage to the carpet carelessly or intentionally. Or to put it another way, the tenants have disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee
Because Michael Georg Arand, Stephanie Claire Arand has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants did not seek suppression.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4805858 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 37 Uppingham Crescent, Hillcrest, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4805858 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 37 Uppingham Crescent, Hillcrest, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions