What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861941 about?

The tribunal order states: Jane Heenan must pay [The landlord/s] $470.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4861941?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861941?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10588315-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861941 about?

The tribunal order states: Jane Heenan must pay [The landlord/s] $470.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4861941?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861941?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10588315-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4861941 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4861941 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$350.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$470.44

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 July 2024. The matter had been part heard on 25 June 2024.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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). The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photos of the property condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The photos indicate premises which were reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said that the carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. It is not possible to discern that from the photos.

The tenant said that the premises had not been provided to her in clean condition and that she spent the first day and half of the tenancy cleaning. She did not think that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. I prefer the photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy provided by the landlord.

The landlord said that she inspected the premises on the day that the tenancy end of the tenancy. Her report and photos taken that day, refer to rubbish outside the property, stains on the carpets ,the lack of cleanliness in the oven and other areas that the landlord was not happy with.

The tenant provided two videos recorded by her showing the condition of the premises after she had completed her cleaning. The video’s show that most of the premises were reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. There are some exceptions. There was rubbish was left outside, the oven was not reasonably clean and that there were stains on some areas of the carpet which I consider occurred during the tenancy. Otherwise, I consider that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant.

The tenant provided a cleaning invoice for $172.50. Having assessed the photos and the areas that I do not consider were reasonably clean and tidy, I order the tenant to pay compensation of $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.

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 toilet wall was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant attempted to make repairs. The tenant accepted that she was not an experienced or qualified repair person, but that she had done as good a job as she could. I fully accept that.

The landlord provided photos of the repair and an invoice for the work required of $350.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Any repairs carried out by a tenant must be to a good and workmanlike standard. That was not the standard achieved by the tenant.

The amount ordered is proven.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and name suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in the hearing and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4861941 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$350.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$470.44

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 July 2024. The matter had been part heard on 25 June 2024.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amount ordered is proven.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861941 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861941 — 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