What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4843422 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Bailey Family Investments $250.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4843422?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843422?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10724842-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4843422 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Bailey Family Investments $250.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4843422?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843422?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10724842-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

295 Rintoul Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4843422 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4843422 — net $250.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: shower, oven, rangehood, plus travel plus GST	$230.00	Cleaning: shower, oven, rangehood, plus travel plus GST
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$250.44
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.44

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Bailey Family Investments $250.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Bailey Family Investments: $250.44 [The tenant/s]: $2,429.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its director Mr Bailey, and Ms Harris. The tenant’s partner was joined as a tenant.
This tenancy has ended and the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants have applied for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for breaches in relation to the tenancy agreement and healthy homes, and the filing fee. The questions I have to decide are: • Should the tenants pay for cleaning? • Should the tenants pay for damage to the carpet? • When did this tenancy start? • Did the landlord breach its duty to provide information?

Should the tenants pay for cleaning?

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided photos showing the shower needed further cleaning. The $80 claimed for that seems reasonable to me. Likewise, the photos of the oven and the rangehood support the need for additional cleaning. The tenant said she was in a hurry when she cleaned the oven. The $100 claimed seems reasonable to me. The landlord has not proved the remainder of the cleaning claim.

Should the tenants pay for damage to the carpet?

There is a claim for replacement carpet. To avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The tenants claim that the landlord demanded payment of an amount in excess of the tenants’ liability under section 49B RTA. To do so would be a breach of the RTA. I am not persuaded by this submission. The landlord has asked for the cost of replacement carpet which is an order I can make if I find the damage was intentional. This claim is dismissed.
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.
There were two lots of carpet damage during the tenancy. The first was intentional damage because the tenants replaced carpet in the dining room and the hall without notifying the landlord. The replacement carpet did not match, and it was agreed the tenants would replace the dining room and hall carpet at the end of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy the tenants discovered two patches of mouldy carpet – one under a pot plant in the bedroom and one under a makeshift side table in the lounge. They notified the landlord about this damage. They suspect the house was damp, which contributed to the damage.
The landlord did not agree the house was damp. A real estate agent advised the landlord to have the carpet replaced because a sale and/or price would have been negatively affected. The carpet was replaced on 2 April 2024 which I accept was before the sale of the tenancy premises. This means I will consider the claim for carpet.
As I said at the hearing, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account with claims for replacement carpet. When allowing compensation the landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan. I would usually also consider condition, but I have not been provided with an ingoing inspection. The IR265 2020 states the expected life span of carpet in tenancy premises is eight years. At the end of this tenancy the carpet was at least 9 years old. Any order made in favour of the landlord would result in betterment. This means the landlord has not proved the tenants should pay for the carpet and the claim is dismissed.

When did this tenancy start?

One of the tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement in April 2018 for one year. Both parties are vague on the details but said they signed two further tenancy agreements extending the fixed term tenancies. The tenancy became periodic tenancy in 2021. The law relating to fixed term tenancies in 2018 was that the tenancy would become periodic unless it was extended.
The tenants submitted that they signed new tenancy agreements each time and noted that there was also a change of landlord in 2020. However, it seems most likely to me the parties extended the tenancy agreement signed in 2018. This is because the effect of the agreements was to extend the tenancy for another year and then become periodic. The change of landlord was not significant because the owner – who is named in the 2018 agreement – stopped using an agent.
I find the legislation relating to Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), which came into force in 2019, did not apply to this tenancy. The claim relating to HHS is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach its duty to provide information?

The tenants claim the landlord did not ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant. I find a tenancy agreement was provided in 2018. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants are also concerned that the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement. A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1A), (1B) and (1C) RTA.
I find the 2018 tenancy agreement contained the required statement about insulation. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants claim the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises. A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
I find there was no requirement to provide insurance information in 2018. The tenants agree they only requested a copy of the insurance details after the end of the tenancy. I find there was no requirement to provide a copy after the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have considered the tenants’ application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
The tenants have paid money to the landlord from the bond, but most of the bond has been refunded to the tenants. Defending the claim for replacement carpet is a success for the tenants. They continue to rent. The cleaning I have ordered is minor after a six year tenancy. I find the possibility another landlord will use this order against them is high. On balance, I find there is no public interest in the tenants being named. The application for suppression is allowed.
A request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4843422 — net $250.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: shower, oven, rangehood, plus travel plus GST	$230.00	Cleaning: shower, oven, rangehood, plus travel plus GST
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$250.44
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.44

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Bailey Family Investments $250.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Bailey Family Investments: $250.44 [The tenant/s]: $2,429.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its director Mr Bailey, and Ms Harris. The tenant’s partner was joined as a tenant.
This tenancy has ended and the parties cannot agree on how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants have applied for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for breaches in relation to the tenancy agreement and healthy homes, and the filing fee. The questions I have to decide are: • Should the tenants pay for cleaning? • Should the tenants pay for damage to the carpet? • When did this tenancy start? • Did the landlord breach its duty to provide information?

Should the tenants pay for cleaning?

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided photos showing the shower needed further cleaning. The $80 claimed for that seems reasonable to me. Likewise, the photos of the oven and the rangehood support the need for additional cleaning. The tenant said she was in a hurry when she cleaned the oven. The $100 claimed seems reasonable to me. The landlord has not proved the remainder of the cleaning claim.

Should the tenants pay for damage to the carpet?

There is a claim for replacement carpet. To avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The tenants claim that the landlord demanded payment of an amount in excess of the tenants’ liability under section 49B RTA. To do so would be a breach of the RTA. I am not persuaded by this submission. The landlord has asked for the cost of replacement carpet which is an order I can make if I find the damage was intentional. This claim is dismissed.
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.
There were two lots of carpet damage during the tenancy. The first was intentional damage because the tenants replaced carpet in the dining room and the hall without notifying the landlord. The replacement carpet did not match, and it was agreed the tenants would replace the dining room and hall carpet at the end of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy the tenants discovered two patches of mouldy carpet – one under a pot plant in the bedroom and one under a makeshift side table in the lounge. They notified the landlord about this damage. They suspect the house was damp, which contributed to the damage.
The landlord did not agree the house was damp. A real estate agent advised the landlord to have the carpet replaced because a sale and/or price would have been negatively affected. The carpet was replaced on 2 April 2024 which I accept was before the sale of the tenancy premises. This means I will consider the claim for carpet.
As I said at the hearing, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account with claims for replacement carpet. When allowing compensation the landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan. I would usually also consider condition, but I have not been provided with an ingoing inspection. The IR265 2020 states the expected life span of carpet in tenancy premises is eight years. At the end of this tenancy the carpet was at least 9 years old. Any order made in favour of the landlord would result in betterment. This means the landlord has not proved the tenants should pay for the carpet and the claim is dismissed.

When did this tenancy start?

One of the tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement in April 2018 for one year. Both parties are vague on the details but said they signed two further tenancy agreements extending the fixed term tenancies. The tenancy became periodic tenancy in 2021. The law relating to fixed term tenancies in 2018 was that the tenancy would become periodic unless it was extended.
The tenants submitted that they signed new tenancy agreements each time and noted that there was also a change of landlord in 2020. However, it seems most likely to me the parties extended the tenancy agreement signed in 2018. This is because the effect of the agreements was to extend the tenancy for another year and then become periodic. The change of landlord was not significant because the owner – who is named in the 2018 agreement – stopped using an agent.
I find the legislation relating to Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), which came into force in 2019, did not apply to this tenancy. The claim relating to HHS is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach its duty to provide information?

The tenants claim the landlord did not ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant. I find a tenancy agreement was provided in 2018. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants are also concerned that the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement. A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1A), (1B) and (1C) RTA.
I find the 2018 tenancy agreement contained the required statement about insulation. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants claim the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises. A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
I find there was no requirement to provide insurance information in 2018. The tenants agree they only requested a copy of the insurance details after the end of the tenancy. I find there was no requirement to provide a copy after the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have considered the tenants’ application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
The tenants have paid money to the landlord from the bond, but most of the bond has been refunded to the tenants. Defending the claim for replacement carpet is a success for the tenants. They continue to rent. The cleaning I have ordered is minor after a six year tenancy. I find the possibility another landlord will use this order against them is high. On balance, I find there is no public interest in the tenants being named. The application for suppression is allowed.
A request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843422 — Cleanliness at 295 Rintoul Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843422 — Cleanliness at 295 Rintoul Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants pay for cleaning?

Should the tenants pay for damage to the carpet?

When did this tenancy start?

Did the landlord breach its duty to provide information?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants pay for cleaning?

Should the tenants pay for damage to the carpet?

When did this tenancy start?

Did the landlord breach its duty to provide information?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions