What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816397 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 4816397?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Funds Held By Landlord: $613.70 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Hall / Lounge / Three…: $2,873.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816397?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11131461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816397 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 4816397?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Funds Held By Landlord: $613.70 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Hall / Lounge / Three…: $2,873.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816397?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816397?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11131461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4816397 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816397 — net $1,570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,200.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Replace carpet hall / lounge / three bedrooms	$2,873.70		Replace carpet hall / lounge / three bedrooms
Repairs damage	$250.00		Repairs damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Funds held by landlord		$613.70	Funds held by landlord
Total award	$4,344.14	$613.70
Net award	$1,570.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,570.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,570.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 25 October 2023. The landlord’s application was filed on 22 February 2024. On 04 June 2024, the application was adjourned for service.
[ redacted landlord] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by [ redacted].
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, ii. Failed to leave the curtains reasonably clean, iii. Is responsible for damage to the carpet, iv. Is responsible for other damage to walls.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises be returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced inspection reports and photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement and end of the tenancy. The property has three bedrooms, kitchen / dining room, lounge, laundry, and a carport. The tenant states they completed some cleaning and removed a significant amount of rubbish before the end of the tenancy. However, after considering the photographs, and hearing from the parties, it is clear, despite the tenant’s best efforts, that they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord is claiming $1,512.16 + GST for cleaning and rubbish removal and includes $217.50 + GST for carpet cleaning. The carpet was deemed uncleanable and was ultimately replaced.
The purpose of compensatory damages is to return the injured party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The compensation must also be reasonable. Based on the evidence, I award the landlord $1,200.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal, including carpet cleaning.
The landlord also claims $296.52 + GST for curtain cleaning. However, there are no photographs showing the condition of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence. This part of the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) 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. See 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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Carpet
The landlord has produced photographs of the carpet from the end of the tenancy showing staining and soiling in each room.
During the tenancy, the landlord discovered that the tenant was keeping a puppy at the property. The landlord states the soiling is consistent with the dog toileting inside, and the staining in the other rooms consistent with the spilling of coloured drinks.
The tenant states that the puppy was kept in one of the bedrooms, and that the other stains have been caused by their young children spilling food or drink on the floor while unsupervised.
After comparing the pre and post tenancy photographs, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is the combination of carelessness, the spilling of drinks, and virtual certainty / intentional, keeping the dog confined in the bedroom.
The landlord attempted to have the carpet cleaned but was unsuccessful. The landlord states although they have insurance for damage, with an excess of $550.00 per claim, the claim was declined because it involved an animal. However, the total amount claimed is less than the four excesses that would have applied.
The total claim for the carpet is $3,193.00. The landlord states that the carpet had been replaced prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Carpet in residential rental properties has an expected useful life span of 8 – 10 years. Having discussed the issue with the landlord, I reduce the amount claimed by 10% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $ 2,873.70. Other damage
The other claim for damage includes door handles, door stop, a towel rail, and a hole in a wall beneath a power socket in one of the bedrooms. There is no evidence presented regarding the door handles, door stop, and towel rail. The landlord states in any event the damage may have been considered no more than fair wear and tear.
A photograph has been produced showing the hole in the wall. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant cannot recall how the damage occurred. The amount claimed to repair the damage is reasonable and awarded in full. Only the affected area was repaired and there is no deduction for betterment. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenant has disclosed domestic violence during the tenancy, confirmed by [ redacted], which although not relevant to the claims appears was a factor ending the tenancy. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to also order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816397 — net $1,570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,200.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Replace carpet hall / lounge / three bedrooms	$2,873.70		Replace carpet hall / lounge / three bedrooms
Repairs damage	$250.00		Repairs damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Funds held by landlord		$613.70	Funds held by landlord
Total award	$4,344.14	$613.70
Net award	$1,570.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,570.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,570.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 25 October 2023. The landlord’s application was filed on 22 February 2024. On 04 June 2024, the application was adjourned for service.
[ redacted landlord] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by [ redacted].
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, ii. Failed to leave the curtains reasonably clean, iii. Is responsible for damage to the carpet, iv. Is responsible for other damage to walls.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and to remove all rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises be returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced inspection reports and photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement and end of the tenancy. The property has three bedrooms, kitchen / dining room, lounge, laundry, and a carport. The tenant states they completed some cleaning and removed a significant amount of rubbish before the end of the tenancy. However, after considering the photographs, and hearing from the parties, it is clear, despite the tenant’s best efforts, that they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord is claiming $1,512.16 + GST for cleaning and rubbish removal and includes $217.50 + GST for carpet cleaning. The carpet was deemed uncleanable and was ultimately replaced.
The purpose of compensatory damages is to return the injured party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The compensation must also be reasonable. Based on the evidence, I award the landlord $1,200.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal, including carpet cleaning.
The landlord also claims $296.52 + GST for curtain cleaning. However, there are no photographs showing the condition of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence. This part of the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) 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. See 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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Carpet
The landlord has produced photographs of the carpet from the end of the tenancy showing staining and soiling in each room.
During the tenancy, the landlord discovered that the tenant was keeping a puppy at the property. The landlord states the soiling is consistent with the dog toileting inside, and the staining in the other rooms consistent with the spilling of coloured drinks.
The tenant states that the puppy was kept in one of the bedrooms, and that the other stains have been caused by their young children spilling food or drink on the floor while unsupervised.
After comparing the pre and post tenancy photographs, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is the combination of carelessness, the spilling of drinks, and virtual certainty / intentional, keeping the dog confined in the bedroom.
The landlord attempted to have the carpet cleaned but was unsuccessful. The landlord states although they have insurance for damage, with an excess of $550.00 per claim, the claim was declined because it involved an animal. However, the total amount claimed is less than the four excesses that would have applied.
The total claim for the carpet is $3,193.00. The landlord states that the carpet had been replaced prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Carpet in residential rental properties has an expected useful life span of 8 – 10 years. Having discussed the issue with the landlord, I reduce the amount claimed by 10% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $ 2,873.70. Other damage
The other claim for damage includes door handles, door stop, a towel rail, and a hole in a wall beneath a power socket in one of the bedrooms. There is no evidence presented regarding the door handles, door stop, and towel rail. The landlord states in any event the damage may have been considered no more than fair wear and tear.
A photograph has been produced showing the hole in the wall. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant cannot recall how the damage occurred. The amount claimed to repair the damage is reasonable and awarded in full. Only the affected area was repaired and there is no deduction for betterment. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenant has disclosed domestic violence during the tenancy, confirmed by [ redacted], which although not relevant to the claims appears was a factor ending the tenancy. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to also order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816397 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816397 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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