What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854500 about?

The tribunal order states: Paul Robert Mayes must pay [The landlord/s] $1,923.66 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4854500?

Bailiff Fee On Eviction: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $162.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $278.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854500?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10505619-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854500 about?

The tribunal order states: Paul Robert Mayes must pay [The landlord/s] $1,923.66 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4854500?

Bailiff Fee On Eviction: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $162.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $278.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854500?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10505619-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4854500 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4854500 — net $1,923.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$278.57	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal: Skip hire	$1,740.00	Rubbish removal: Skip hire
Rubbish removal: Labour	$1,322.50	Rubbish removal: Labour
Cleaning	$800.00	that required of the tenant. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $800.00 towards the cleaning costs.
Lock/key replacement	$162.15	Lock/key replacement
Bailiff fee on eviction	$200.00	Bailiff fee on eviction
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,923.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,923.66

Order

Paul Robert Mayes must pay [The landlord/s] $1,923.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend this video hearing by Teams. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time . All calls went to voicemail. The tenant had confirmed his contact details in a message to Tenancy Services. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $278.57.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). 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 (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) 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 standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord needed to hire rubbish skips to remove the rubbish left at the premises. The skip hire fee is $1,740.00.
The landlord claims $1,472.00 for cleaning. The landlord said that the tenant kept a large dog on the premises and that the dog had stained the carpets and caused them to smell.
The landlord said that the premises were put on the market for sale at the end of the tenancy. No further cleaning was carried out by the landlord between the cleaning claimed for in this application and the property being placed on the market for sale.
As noted above in Ace Property Management v Owens, the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The standard of cleanliness required to place premises on the market for sale will be a much higher standard of cleanliness than that required of the tenant. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $800.00 towards the cleaning costs.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord claims $162.15 for key and lock replacement.
The Tribunal had previously ordered the tenant to leave the premises. The tenant failed to do so on the date where possession was granted to the landlord. The landlord used a bailiff to enforce the eviction. The bailiff fee is $200.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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 (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 landlord applied for compensation for damage to an exterior door. The landlord evidence was that they were told by a neighbour that the tenant’s partner had damaged the door on 30 January 2024. By this date, the tenancy had ended and the damage has not been caused during the tenancy. For that reason the claim is dismissed.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4854500 — net $1,923.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$278.57	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal: Skip hire	$1,740.00	Rubbish removal: Skip hire
Rubbish removal: Labour	$1,322.50	Rubbish removal: Labour
Cleaning	$800.00	that required of the tenant. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $800.00 towards the cleaning costs.
Lock/key replacement	$162.15	Lock/key replacement
Bailiff fee on eviction	$200.00	Bailiff fee on eviction
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,923.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,923.66

Order

Paul Robert Mayes must pay [The landlord/s] $1,923.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend this video hearing by Teams. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time . All calls went to voicemail. The tenant had confirmed his contact details in a message to Tenancy Services. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $278.57.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). 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 (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) 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 standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord needed to hire rubbish skips to remove the rubbish left at the premises. The skip hire fee is $1,740.00.
The landlord claims $1,472.00 for cleaning. The landlord said that the tenant kept a large dog on the premises and that the dog had stained the carpets and caused them to smell.
The landlord said that the premises were put on the market for sale at the end of the tenancy. No further cleaning was carried out by the landlord between the cleaning claimed for in this application and the property being placed on the market for sale.
As noted above in Ace Property Management v Owens, the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The standard of cleanliness required to place premises on the market for sale will be a much higher standard of cleanliness than that required of the tenant. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $800.00 towards the cleaning costs.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord claims $162.15 for key and lock replacement.
The Tribunal had previously ordered the tenant to leave the premises. The tenant failed to do so on the date where possession was granted to the landlord. The landlord used a bailiff to enforce the eviction. The bailiff fee is $200.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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 (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 landlord applied for compensation for damage to an exterior door. The landlord evidence was that they were told by a neighbour that the tenant’s partner had damaged the door on 30 January 2024. By this date, the tenancy had ended and the damage has not been caused during the tenancy. For that reason the claim is dismissed.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854500 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854500 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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