What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877761 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $39.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4877761?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877761?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10771444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4877761 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $39.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4877761?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877761?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10771444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877761 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877761 — net $39.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00		Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$60.00	$20.44
Net award	$39.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$39.56

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877761 — net $39.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00		Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$60.00	$20.44
Net award	$39.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$39.56

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $39.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Bayleys Real Estate Limited Auckland Central As Agent For Qing Zhang Anna Zhou immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,692.63 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The order above is made on the basis that the remaining bond of $1,732.19 is to be paid to the parties to meet the following awards of compensation:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Zhou represented the landlord. [Tenant 1 and 2 appeared in person]. [Tenant 3] appeared by phone as she no longer lives in Auckland.
These claims concern the tenancy of a five-bedroom home in Waterview, Auckland. The tenancy began on 1 July 2022 and ended on 2 March 2024. The weekly rental was $1,150.00 per week. The tenants paid a bond of $4200.00.
The tenants filed a claim on 13 May 2024 seeking refund of their bond.
The landlord filed a claim on 17 June 2024 seeking compensation and refund of the bond.
The parties have already attended mediation. Following that mediation the amount of $1,732.19 is still held at the bond centre, being the amount of the landlord’s total claim (compensation of $1,711.75 plus the filing fee of $20.44). The balance has been released to the tenants.
The landlord seeks the following compensation: a. Cleaning $510.00 b. Garden maintenance $402.50 c. Carpet repairs $799.25 Cleaning
Ms Zhou said that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. She said that the property was not clean in various respects including the following: The bathroom tap had marks on it, various drawers needed to be wiped out more thoroughly, there was mould in the corner of the shower, dust on a light switch and various surfaces and there were marks on some walls.
The landlord produced a selection of photos from the end of the tenancy, almost all of which are close up photos of the areas described by Ms Zhou.
The landlord has claimed $510.00 for cleaning and produced an invoice from Starry Cleaning Service Ltd in the amount of $510 for “top up cleaning base on final inspection photos provided”.
The tenants say that they left the property was reasonably clean and tidy and in fact engaged their own cleaner to clean the property before they left. They provided a copy of an invoice from The Clean Sweep for “End of Lease Cleaning” in the amount of $287.50. Relevant law and analysis
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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).
I have carefully reviewed the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. It is difficult to gain an accurate impression of the overall condition of the property at the end of the tenancy as the landlord has only provided very close up photos of the areas that are claimed to require more cleaning. The areas photographed show very minor issues in any event. In my view the property has been left reasonably clean and tidy overall. The landlord should expect to do some additional cleaning before re-letting the property.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed. Garden maintenance
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred me to the tenancy agreement which records that the tenants are responsible for the garden and lawns.
The landlord provided photos of the garden from the end of the tenancy which show that approximately half of the lawn has been mowed but the other half is overgrown. The photos also show some weeds along a strip down the side of the house with bark and pavers.
Ms Zhou did not upload pre-inspection photos to the landlord’s claim or bring along copies to the hearing, but the tenants and I were able to view those photos on Ms Zhou’s laptop. Those photos show that the garden was fairly neat and recently mowed at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord produced an invoice from BD Landscape Ltd in the amount of $402.50 for “Garden service”.
The tenants accept that the garden was not left as tidy as it should have been. They said that the landlord’s claim is unreasonable as they should not be liable to pay for the landlord’s garden maintenance and that, despite their requests, they have not been provided with a breakdown so they do not really know what the invoice is for. They say that they mowed approximately half the lawn when they left, as the other half was quite difficult to mow. They said further that at one stage during the tenancy the property manager engaged a contractor to tidy up the garden so they became uncertain about what their responsibilities were (the landlord denied this and said that the contractor had only trimmed trees). Relevant law and analysis
As with cleaning, the tenants are only required to keep the garden and lawns reasonably clean and tidy. They do not need to leave the lawn and garden in exactly the condition that it was when they moved in. Tenants are not expected to maintain lawns and gardens to a professional standard.
I have carefully reviewed the photos and consider that the tenants should be liable to compensate the landlord for mowing the rest of the lawn and for weeding down the side of the house. The area of lawn is fairly small, as is the strip down the side of the house. As there is no breakdown of work in the invoice have to apply my own estimate of appropriate compensation for that work, which I estimate to be $60.00. I order compensation accordingly. Carpet repairs
The landlord said that there was a hole on one of the stairs the top of the landing and some stains on the carpet in two of the bedrooms. Ms Zhou provided a photo of the worn hole and some close up photos of marks on the carpet.
Ms Zhou produced the pre-inspection photos on her laptop. There is a photo of the stairs at the top of the landing taken at some distance but there is no sign of any damage to the carpet at that stage. The photos of the bedrooms are taken at a distance and it is difficult to discern whether there were any marks on the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has patched the areas of carpet and claims the sum of $799.00 from Carpet Surgeon for “3x carpet patch repairs”.
The tenants say that they are not responsible for the carpet patching. They accept that a hole did wear through on the hall landing but say that this happened gradually through the tenancy and that it is wear and tear. They explained that there is one bedroom (with an ensuite) downstairs, together with the lounge and kitchen. Upstairs there are four bedrooms, the bathroom and an office. They said that the stairs were a very high traffic area as four tenants had to access their rooms, the main bathroom was up there, and the downstairs tenant had their office upstairs. The step in question is the turning point on the stairs and so very likely to wear through. Law and analysis
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.
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.
I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the stains on the carpet occurred during the tenancy. The move-out photos are close up photos and are impossible to compare with the move-in photos which are all taken at a distance.
I find that the landlord has proved that the hole in the carpet at the top of the landing occurred during the tenancy but I consider that the hole is the result of wear and tear. This was a high traffic area. There were five people living in the tenancy. The appearance of the hole as shown in the photo is consistent with the sort of hole that has gradually worn through.
However even if I had found the landlord’s claims in respect of the carpet proved I would not have ordered compensation because of the age of the carpet. A landlord should be returned to the position that they would have been if the tenant had not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Inland Revenue Department General depreciation rates (IR265) estimate that carpet has a useful life of 8 years.
Ms Zhou advised me that the property was fairly new but was not sure when it had been built. She confirmed that the carpet had not been replaced during the tenancy. Online property information shows that the property to have been built in 2013, so the carpet must now be 11 years old and due for replacement.
The landlord’s claim for carpet patching is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants have been the substantially successful party and so are entitled to a refund of the filing fee. They are also entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877761 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877761 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions