What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4869181 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4869181?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4869181?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4869181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10830159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4869181 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4869181?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4869181?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4869181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10830159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4869181 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4869181 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4869181 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In a cross-application, the landlord applied for refund of the bond as compensation for damage, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
None of the claims made by the landlord were made out and I make no award for damages. The bond is therefore to be released in full to the tenants.
The landlord must reimburse the tenants’ filing fee. The tenancy
The landlord purchased the premises in March 2018. At that time, the house was a new-build. The landlord lived in the premises from approximately March 2018 up until the commencement of this tenancy in 2022.
The tenancy commenced 1 August 2022 and ended on 14 April 2024.
The premises were re-tenanted after the current tenants moved out.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord seeks $716.61 for cleaning of the premises. He provided one cleaning invoice dated 16 April 2024 for $466.16 for a “4 BDRM Deep Clean” and a second cleaning invoice dated the same date for $250.00 for “Shampoo Cleaning Service Double Storey Carpet 12 x Carpet Steph wash.”
The tenants provided photos taken on 14 April 2024 which show the premises were reasonably clean and tidy when they exited. The photos included images of themselves (or a friend) shampooing the carpet. While they admit they left one bag of rubbish outside, which the landlord had to dispose of, the property was otherwise reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord sought $100.00 reimbursement for the disposal of garbage, being a bag of old curtains found outside (which the tenants acknowledged they left behind), a basket and additional rubbish the landlord says was left inside the wheelie bins and which he had to dispose of. The landlord did not produce invoices in support of those disposal costs, he stated it was mostly for his time - the only cost he actually incurred was $15 for three council tags.
I find the tenants left the house in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The tenants’ photos of the interior of the premises show the floors and surfaces were reasonably clean and tidy. If I was wrong on that, I note the landlord has claimed the cost of a “deep clean” which would bring the premises to higher standard than is required. A tenant must only leave a premises “reasonably clean and tidy” and I consider a “deep clean” goes far beyond that.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning.
I also dismiss the landlord’s claim for costs incurred for rubbish removal. The landlord did not produce evidence of actual costs incurred, so whilst I accept the tenants left some rubbish at the property, the landlord has not proven the actual cost incurred.

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 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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 sought compensation for various damage he alleges was caused by the tenants during the tenancy. I address each item which the landlord sought compensation for below: Exterior deck
The landlord submits the tenants left the exterior deck damaged. The landlord has provided photos taken on 14 April 2024 which show lighter patches on the deck. The landlord says this was caused by the tenants partially water blasting the deck. The landlord says he had to then waterblast the remainder of the deck, which did not remedy it, so he contracted a professional to complete it at a cost of $130.00. The landlord has provided an invoice dated 30 April 2024 in support.
The tenants submit they waterblasted the deck to remove some moss and what they described as mould. They said the deck was not damaged, it was just that they struggled to use the waterblasting machine and so decided to stop part- way through.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven that the deck was damaged. No damage is visible – the fact that it was partially waterblasted cleaned, but not entirely, does not mean it was damaged.
I dismiss the application for compensation for damage to the deck. Front lawn
The landlord submits the tenants damaged the front lawn, in breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement. The landlord seeks compensation of $450.00 to remedy the damaged front lawn.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 14 April 2024 for “gardening and landscaping” for $450. The landlord provided some photographs, which show part of the front lawn beside the driveway, but not the entirety of the lawn. The landlord also provided text messages dated 22 April 2024 in which the tenant agreed to pay the costs of remedying the lawn.
The tenants submit while they did agree to pay to remedy the lawn when it was raised by the landlord in April, they in fact do not think they are liable for any damage. They say they kept the lawn in good condition, however the weather over the summer months had caused damage to the lawn.
The tenancy agreement, at clause 21, states the tenants agree to keep the property including lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and papers, and agree not to remove any tress, shrubs or bushes. The tenants also agree to keep the lawns and garden weeded and in a generally tidy condition.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven that the damage to the front lawn was caused by the tenants during the tenancy, or if it was, that it is more than fair wear and tear. Having failed to produce photographs to show the damage alleged, I have very little evidence on which to assess whether the damage is likely to have been caused by some action (or inaction) by the tenants, or whether it was a result of dry summer weather. The photographs that were produced show the edges of the lawn are kept tidy and are not protruding over the concrete driveway. That is consistent with the tenants’ evidence that they employed someone to regularly mow and maintain the lawn.
I dismiss the application for compensation for damage to the front lawn. Kitchen drawer handles
The landlord submits the tenants damaged four kitchen drawer handles. The landlord has provided screenshots from his bank account to show transactions at [Hardware store] on 14 April 2024 for $70.32 and $140.64, which he says were for the purchase of replacement handles from two different stores. No explanation was given as to why the landlord was seeking a total of $400 in compensation.
The tenants submit one handle was already broken when they moved in. The other three they say broke during the tenancy, but they say only through normal use. Essentially, the tenants submitted it was fair wear and tear. When asked whether one handle was broken at the start of the tenancy, the landlord agreed one handle was taped up at one side, but says it was not broken as it was still useable.
The landlord provided photos which show all handles intact at the start of the tenancy (although it was agreed one handle was taped at one end, though that was not visible in the photo), and a photo taken at the end of the tenancy which showed four handles broken off. The landlord said the handles were new in March 2018 when he purchased the property.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven that the damage to the kitchen handles was more than fair wear and tear. One of the handles was broken, or beginning to break, at the start of the tenancy in August 2022. At that stage, the handle was only 4 years old. That suggests the handles were not of particularly robust quality, and it follows that three more handles could have broken through regular use (as expected in a kitchen) over the following two years.
Lastly, I note that the landlord’s claim for $400 was unjustified in that it exceeded the amount spent to remedy them. The only evidence provided was the landlord’s bank statement which does not show what items were purchased from [Hardware store]. Notably, the items that were purchased on that date did not add up to $400.
I dismiss the application for compensation for damage to the kitchen handles. Stair lights
The landlord submits the tenants broke one of the two stairlights on the internal stairs at the premises. The landlord has provided photos which show that at the start of the tenancy the lights were working (the light in question is on in the photograph) but was not working at the end. The landlord seeks compensation of $200.
The tenants submit the light was never working from the start of the tenancy. They acknowledged the photo from the entry inspection dated 30 July 2022 shows the light was working but insist it was not working when they moved in on 1 August 2022. The tenants also produced a text message from a former property manager in which the property manager states the stairlight was not working at the start of the tenancy.
In response, the landlord submitted the prior property manager’s evidence should be ignored as that property manager was fired for doing a poor job, and he is unlikely to speak well of the landlord. Given the property manager was not present at the hearing, and so his evidence could not be tested, I put his evidence and the text messages to one side.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven the damage to the stairlights occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to support his claim of $200 to repair therefore I am not satisfied the landlord has proven the cost incurred to remedy the damage.
During the hearing, the landlord referred to the bank statement and the transactions being evidence of both the purchase of kitchen handles and stairlights, but when providing the bank statements by email after the hearing the landlord said both transactions shown were for stairlights as he needed to get them from two different [Hardware stores].
Regardless of whether the bank statement evidence was in support of the cost of remedying the stairlights and/or the kitchen handles, the bank statements are not sufficient to support either claim (and certainly not both). Without the actual invoices to show what product was purchased from [Hardware store], the landlord has not proven his claim.
I dismiss the application for compensation for damage to the stairlights. Pest control
A claim for the cost of pest control was not included in the landlord’s application. I do not accept that, by sending the invoices in to Tenancy Services in the period between submitting the application and the hearing, the landlord amended the application to include this claim. Such an amendment needs to be made explicitly, to place the other party on notice.
Even if I were to accept the claim was so amended, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $714.00 for pest control costs, as set out below.
The landlord submits there was no issue with pests when he lived at the property prior to the tenants, but that he needed to have exterminators during the tenancy to get rid of wood cockroaches which the landlord said was caused by food left overs left out by the tenants.
The landlord has provided invoices from [Pest control service] for treatments done on 10 February 2023, 16 May 2023, and 8 December 2023. All three service reports record the pest detected or targeted was wood cockroaches, and the treatment was applied at “Boundary fence, external, property”. In all three reports, the comments made by the contractor refer to the treatment being applied to the exterior parts of the property.
The tenants submit there were cockroaches present at the house when they moved in. They also gave evidence that when they spoke to the pest control contractor, he told them there was a colony out near the door in the backyard.
No photos were produced of cockroaches in the house. The landlord did not produce any evidence in support of his submission the tenants left food scraps out which attracted the cockroaches.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven the need for pest control arose out of the tenants’ actions or inactions. The [Pest control service] reports all refer to treatment being needed for cockroaches outside of the house. There is no evidence to support the claim that the tenants attracted the cockroaches through the leaving of food scraps, and in particular, that such food scraps were left outside the home where the cockroaches were found to be coming from.
I dismiss the application for compensation for the cost of pest control. Curtain rails
As with the claim for pest control costs, the landlord’s claim for the replacement of curtain rails was not included in the landlord’s original application. For the same reasons, I do not accept that by sending in a photograph of the curtain rail, the landlord amended his claim to include this damage.
However, even if I were to accept the claim was so amended, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $100.00 for new curtain rails as set out below.
The landlord claims that after the tenants moved out, his new property manager discovered the curtain rails in the living room downstairs were broken. The landlord has provided a photograph of the curtain rail which shows the horizontal part of the curtain rail has bent. No evidence was submitted to support the claim for $100 for the cost of remedying the curtain rail.
The tenants submit the curtain rails were not broken and did not need replacement. They acknowledged the curtain rails appear to have bent but they say they were not unusable and it was only caused by the weight of the curtains and their regular use.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven the damage to the curtain rails is more than fair wear and tear. The curtain rails are still attached to the wall and the wall does not appear damaged. That is consistent with the tenants’ evidence that the bending of the rail was caused by use of the curtains and/or heavy curtains, rather than by some deliberate (or careless) action by themselves. In making my decision, I have taken into account the age of the curtain rails, which without evidence to the contrary, is presumed to be approximately 6 years (since the home was purchased as a new-build in 2018).
I dismiss the application for compensation for damage to the curtain rail(s).

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the filing fee?

Given the tenants have succeeded with the claim the landlord must reimburse the tenants’ filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4869181 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4869181 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions