What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819159 about?

The tribunal order states: [ Tenant] to pay Liane Shelley McKey $100.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4819159?

Lawn Maintenance: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819159?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819159?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11161265-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819159 about?

The tribunal order states: [ Tenant] to pay Liane Shelley McKey $100.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4819159?

Lawn Maintenance: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819159?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819159?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11161265-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819159 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819159 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawn maintenance	$100.00	Lawn maintenance
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

[ Tenant] to pay Liane Shelley McKey $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Liane Shelley McKey immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 15 June 2018 and ended on 21 December 2023. The landlord’s application was filed on 25 February 2024. On 26 March 2024, the matter was scheduled for a hearing on 04 June 2024. On that date, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and made evidence directions. On 27 June 2024, the matter was set down for an in person hearing before me on 16 August 2024.
Both parties attended. The landlord was accompanied by Mr Farquharson who took the promise to tell the truth and provided evidence.
The landlord’s claims are that: i. The tenant is responsible for water damage to the kitchen cabinetry occurring during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks compensation of $511.75, ii. The tenant failed to leave the property, including the grounds, in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, for which the landlord seeks compensation of $448.25.
The onus of proving the remaining claim rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. 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?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The landlord has produced photographs showing aeras of the inside of the property which they state are indicative of the properties general state of uncleanliness at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also produced photographs showing a section of unkempt garden at the rear of the property, bare patches of lawn against a boundary fence and along one of the houses exterior walls, and a stain and soiling on the carpet in the lounge.
The landlord states that all the indoor photographs were taken by Mr Farquharson on 22 December 2023. Mr Farquharson confirming this in his evidence. Two of the photographs showing pot plants placed outside the house and along the fence were taken on 13 March 2022. The photograph showing the unkempt garden was taken on 21 December 2023, before the tenant had handed the landlord the keys and vacated the property.
The landlord states that the parties conducted the end of tenancy inspection together, during which they raised concerns that the property had not been left reasonable clean.
The landlord states the agreement includes a term that the tenant arrange professional carpet cleaning. The landlord states this was not completed. However, any term of an agreement that imposes an obligation beyond what is required under the Act, such as to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, is unenforceable against tenants unless the Tribunal finds there are special circumstances. See section 11 of the Act.
The landlord states although they obtained a quote to clean the property, they lacked funds, completed the cleaning, and ground maintenance themselves over four days, for which they are claiming $448.25.
The tenant denies that they have failed to leave the property reasonably clean, stating that they did their best, and that if any further cleaning were required it was over and above reasonable expectations and could have only been achieved through professional cleaning. The tenant adds that the inside of the property was in a similar state of cleanliness to how it was at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant states that the landlord was reluctant to complete a pre tenancy inspection. This is denied by the landlord who stated they resided in the property before the tenant and maintained the property to a high standard.
The tenant denies that the garden was unkempt at the end of the tenancy, noting that the photograph had been taken before they vacated. The tenant also denies responsibility for the carpet stain in the lounge, arguing that it was the commencement of the tenancy but not recorded on the pre tenancy checklist. Regarding the bare patches of lawn, they state that the area along the fence had been freshly sown at the start of the tenancy and was not established lawn. The tenant states shortly their partner placed large pots against the fence, which killed the grass, and similarly they accept placing pots against the wall of the house which caused additional damage.
What is reasonably clean and tidy is not defined in the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
While there are photographs showing the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy, there are none from the commencement. Based on the photographs produced, the level of uncleanliness at the end of the tenancy does not appear significant. The pre tenancy checklist is unsigned by either party and does not record the properties cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy. The burden is on the landlord to establish the claim. In this case, there is insufficient evidence for an objective before and after comparison. The claim for cleaning is dismissed. Regarding the bare patches of lawn by the fence and along the house, these are acknowledged by the tenant. Accordingly, I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 to reseeding.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The property was built in the 1970’s, and was renovated, with a new kitchen installed about a year the tenancy commenced. The landlord has produced photographs taken at the end showing damage to the lower part of the cabinetry next to the dishwasher. Water appears to have leaked from the dishwasher causing minor swelling and lifting of the laminate.
The landlord states that during an inspection in July 2023, the tenant pointed out that the cutlery basket was sticking and difficult to operate. The landlord state that they intended to address the issue but forgot. The landlord states that in September 2023, the tenant advised that the dishwasher appeared to have leaked causing damage to the cabinetry.
The landlord argues that despite their failure to address the cutlery basket issue, the tenant should be held liable for the damage, claiming they should have noticed the leak and reported it earlier.
The tenant states that they discovered the damage for the first time in September 2023 and immediately advised the landlord.
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).
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.
Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act a tenant must advise the landlrod as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may render the tenant liable for any subsequent damage that may occur as a result of failing to report the matter.
The landlord was advised but failed to address what may have been the cause of the damage to the cabinetry. Having raised it, I do not believe it was the tenant’s responsibility to remind them. The photographs produced suggest that the damage was gradual and may not have been immediately noticeable to the tenant.
While I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, I am not satisfied that it was the result of carelessness or an intentional act or omission by the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of 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 tenant has been substantially successful defending the claims and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to suppress the landlord’s name. The Tribunal orders suppression of the name of the witness as they are not a party to the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819159 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawn maintenance	$100.00	Lawn maintenance
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

[ Tenant] to pay Liane Shelley McKey $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Liane Shelley McKey immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 15 June 2018 and ended on 21 December 2023. The landlord’s application was filed on 25 February 2024. On 26 March 2024, the matter was scheduled for a hearing on 04 June 2024. On that date, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and made evidence directions. On 27 June 2024, the matter was set down for an in person hearing before me on 16 August 2024.
Both parties attended. The landlord was accompanied by Mr Farquharson who took the promise to tell the truth and provided evidence.
The landlord’s claims are that: i. The tenant is responsible for water damage to the kitchen cabinetry occurring during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks compensation of $511.75, ii. The tenant failed to leave the property, including the grounds, in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, for which the landlord seeks compensation of $448.25.
The onus of proving the remaining claim rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. 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?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The landlord has produced photographs showing aeras of the inside of the property which they state are indicative of the properties general state of uncleanliness at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also produced photographs showing a section of unkempt garden at the rear of the property, bare patches of lawn against a boundary fence and along one of the houses exterior walls, and a stain and soiling on the carpet in the lounge.
The landlord states that all the indoor photographs were taken by Mr Farquharson on 22 December 2023. Mr Farquharson confirming this in his evidence. Two of the photographs showing pot plants placed outside the house and along the fence were taken on 13 March 2022. The photograph showing the unkempt garden was taken on 21 December 2023, before the tenant had handed the landlord the keys and vacated the property.
The landlord states that the parties conducted the end of tenancy inspection together, during which they raised concerns that the property had not been left reasonable clean.
The landlord states the agreement includes a term that the tenant arrange professional carpet cleaning. The landlord states this was not completed. However, any term of an agreement that imposes an obligation beyond what is required under the Act, such as to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, is unenforceable against tenants unless the Tribunal finds there are special circumstances. See section 11 of the Act.
The landlord states although they obtained a quote to clean the property, they lacked funds, completed the cleaning, and ground maintenance themselves over four days, for which they are claiming $448.25.
The tenant denies that they have failed to leave the property reasonably clean, stating that they did their best, and that if any further cleaning were required it was over and above reasonable expectations and could have only been achieved through professional cleaning. The tenant adds that the inside of the property was in a similar state of cleanliness to how it was at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant states that the landlord was reluctant to complete a pre tenancy inspection. This is denied by the landlord who stated they resided in the property before the tenant and maintained the property to a high standard.
The tenant denies that the garden was unkempt at the end of the tenancy, noting that the photograph had been taken before they vacated. The tenant also denies responsibility for the carpet stain in the lounge, arguing that it was the commencement of the tenancy but not recorded on the pre tenancy checklist. Regarding the bare patches of lawn, they state that the area along the fence had been freshly sown at the start of the tenancy and was not established lawn. The tenant states shortly their partner placed large pots against the fence, which killed the grass, and similarly they accept placing pots against the wall of the house which caused additional damage.
What is reasonably clean and tidy is not defined in the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
While there are photographs showing the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy, there are none from the commencement. Based on the photographs produced, the level of uncleanliness at the end of the tenancy does not appear significant. The pre tenancy checklist is unsigned by either party and does not record the properties cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy. The burden is on the landlord to establish the claim. In this case, there is insufficient evidence for an objective before and after comparison. The claim for cleaning is dismissed. Regarding the bare patches of lawn by the fence and along the house, these are acknowledged by the tenant. Accordingly, I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 to reseeding.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The property was built in the 1970’s, and was renovated, with a new kitchen installed about a year the tenancy commenced. The landlord has produced photographs taken at the end showing damage to the lower part of the cabinetry next to the dishwasher. Water appears to have leaked from the dishwasher causing minor swelling and lifting of the laminate.
The landlord states that during an inspection in July 2023, the tenant pointed out that the cutlery basket was sticking and difficult to operate. The landlord state that they intended to address the issue but forgot. The landlord states that in September 2023, the tenant advised that the dishwasher appeared to have leaked causing damage to the cabinetry.
The landlord argues that despite their failure to address the cutlery basket issue, the tenant should be held liable for the damage, claiming they should have noticed the leak and reported it earlier.
The tenant states that they discovered the damage for the first time in September 2023 and immediately advised the landlord.
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).
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.
Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act a tenant must advise the landlrod as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage of the need for any repairs. A failure to do so may render the tenant liable for any subsequent damage that may occur as a result of failing to report the matter.
The landlord was advised but failed to address what may have been the cause of the damage to the cabinetry. Having raised it, I do not believe it was the tenant’s responsibility to remind them. The photographs produced suggest that the damage was gradual and may not have been immediately noticeable to the tenant.
While I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, I am not satisfied that it was the result of carelessness or an intentional act or omission by the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of 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 tenant has been substantially successful defending the claims and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to suppress the landlord’s name. The Tribunal orders suppression of the name of the witness as they are not a party to the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819159 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819159 — Tenancy dispute

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