What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879086 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay Babu Manoj Datt $200.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4879086?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879086?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11058709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879086 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay Babu Manoj Datt $200.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4879086?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879086?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11058709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879086 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879086 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$1,035.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay Babu Manoj Datt $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,035.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Babu Manoj Datt: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $835.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1], the tenant, attended with [Tenant 2], his wife, and witnesses, [Witness 1] and [Witness 2]. The landlord, Mr Babu Datt, advised that he was now the sole landlord, and agreed to provide documentation showing his sole ownership of the premises. These were submitted after the hearing. Having considered these documents, I am satisfied that Mr Datt is the landlord, and the other individual named in the tenancy agreement is no longer a landlord of the premises. Background
This is a tenancy of long duration, lasting almost 12 years, having started on 5 July 2012 and coming to an end on 14 April 2024. The rent is $465.00 per week and a bond of $1,035.00 was paid.
The tenant has filed an application, number 4879086, seeking the return of the bond. In the application, the tenant noted the landlord had made claims against him for damage, which he considered to be the result of ordinary wear and tear. Other costs, for cleaning and gardening had also been sought by the landlord. The landlord’s email indicated that he sought the bond in full.
The landlord has filed a cross application, number 4976055, seeking compensation, payment from the bond, and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. In the application, the claim for compensation was detailed as: damage to cabinet doors ($300.00), removal of grass on the side of the house ($250.00), carpet cleaning to remove stains ($80.00), cleaning of the oven and rangehood ($70.00), and 30% of the cost of replacing carpet in two rooms ($1,000.00). Exemplary damages were also sought, essentially for the cleaning, gardening, and damage to cabinets and carpet.
At the hearing, the landlord advised that he no longer sought compensation for the cabinet doors. General principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

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 and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). The landlord seeks costs for cleaning and gardening/removal of grass.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily pristine, or to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 Therefore, a landlord may have some additional work to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant 5 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 6
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the tenant has met the standard required, and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to the cleaning costs sought (for cleaning of the oven and rangehood). Even if the tenant was found to be liable, the landlord has not provided an invoice to establish the costs incurred for cleaning. There is also the absence of photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
In terms of the garden, while noting the photographic and oral evidence provided, again, the landlord has not provided an invoice to show the cost incurred for removal of the lawn clippings from the side of the house. I also note the tenant’s 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Richards v Scally (above) 6 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. evidence that the landlord had allowed them to keep the lawn clippings there. As this claim has not been established, it is dismissed. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet. To be successful, 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. 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. Carpet
The landlord seeks the cost of replacing the carpet due to the stains on it. He states the claim was approved and claims the insurance excess of $500.00, but has not provided any evidence concerning the insurance position. The photographic evidence provided by the landlord is noted. The landlord has also established that the carpet was new in 2017, by providing the relevant invoice, so any damage to it is likely to have occurred during this tenancy.
The photographic evidence shows there are stains on the carpet. The evidence indicates this is most likely careless damage. The tenants cleaned the carpet themselves, using a Rug Doctor carpet cleaning machine, but could not remove these stains. The landlord claims professional carpet cleaning costs, but there is no evidence of professional carpet cleaning being undertaken to try to remove the stains.
In this case, I do not find the evidence shows the carpet was damaged to the extent that replacement was warranted. So, the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess is dismissed. However, in view of the stains remaining, I consider it reasonable for the tenants to contribute to professional cleaning of the carpet. In their evidence at the hearing, they had indicated they were willing to do this at the end of the tenancy, but when additional costs were sought from them by the landlord, they withdrew this offer. Accordingly, I consider it reasonable for the tenants to pay the landlord $200.00 for cleaning of the carpet. Exemplary damages
The landlord also claims exemplary damages. As noted above, exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act. While a breach has been established, for which compensation has been awarded, the landlord has not identified any unlawful act by the tenants. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is not order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant seeks name suppression, the landlord does not. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879086 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$1,035.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay Babu Manoj Datt $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,035.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Babu Manoj Datt: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $835.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1], the tenant, attended with [Tenant 2], his wife, and witnesses, [Witness 1] and [Witness 2]. The landlord, Mr Babu Datt, advised that he was now the sole landlord, and agreed to provide documentation showing his sole ownership of the premises. These were submitted after the hearing. Having considered these documents, I am satisfied that Mr Datt is the landlord, and the other individual named in the tenancy agreement is no longer a landlord of the premises. Background
This is a tenancy of long duration, lasting almost 12 years, having started on 5 July 2012 and coming to an end on 14 April 2024. The rent is $465.00 per week and a bond of $1,035.00 was paid.
The tenant has filed an application, number 4879086, seeking the return of the bond. In the application, the tenant noted the landlord had made claims against him for damage, which he considered to be the result of ordinary wear and tear. Other costs, for cleaning and gardening had also been sought by the landlord. The landlord’s email indicated that he sought the bond in full.
The landlord has filed a cross application, number 4976055, seeking compensation, payment from the bond, and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. In the application, the claim for compensation was detailed as: damage to cabinet doors ($300.00), removal of grass on the side of the house ($250.00), carpet cleaning to remove stains ($80.00), cleaning of the oven and rangehood ($70.00), and 30% of the cost of replacing carpet in two rooms ($1,000.00). Exemplary damages were also sought, essentially for the cleaning, gardening, and damage to cabinets and carpet.
At the hearing, the landlord advised that he no longer sought compensation for the cabinet doors. General principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

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 and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). The landlord seeks costs for cleaning and gardening/removal of grass.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily pristine, or to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 Therefore, a landlord may have some additional work to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant 5 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 6
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the tenant has met the standard required, and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to the cleaning costs sought (for cleaning of the oven and rangehood). Even if the tenant was found to be liable, the landlord has not provided an invoice to establish the costs incurred for cleaning. There is also the absence of photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
In terms of the garden, while noting the photographic and oral evidence provided, again, the landlord has not provided an invoice to show the cost incurred for removal of the lawn clippings from the side of the house. I also note the tenant’s 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Richards v Scally (above) 6 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. evidence that the landlord had allowed them to keep the lawn clippings there. As this claim has not been established, it is dismissed. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet. To be successful, 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. 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. Carpet
The landlord seeks the cost of replacing the carpet due to the stains on it. He states the claim was approved and claims the insurance excess of $500.00, but has not provided any evidence concerning the insurance position. The photographic evidence provided by the landlord is noted. The landlord has also established that the carpet was new in 2017, by providing the relevant invoice, so any damage to it is likely to have occurred during this tenancy.
The photographic evidence shows there are stains on the carpet. The evidence indicates this is most likely careless damage. The tenants cleaned the carpet themselves, using a Rug Doctor carpet cleaning machine, but could not remove these stains. The landlord claims professional carpet cleaning costs, but there is no evidence of professional carpet cleaning being undertaken to try to remove the stains.
In this case, I do not find the evidence shows the carpet was damaged to the extent that replacement was warranted. So, the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess is dismissed. However, in view of the stains remaining, I consider it reasonable for the tenants to contribute to professional cleaning of the carpet. In their evidence at the hearing, they had indicated they were willing to do this at the end of the tenancy, but when additional costs were sought from them by the landlord, they withdrew this offer. Accordingly, I consider it reasonable for the tenants to pay the landlord $200.00 for cleaning of the carpet. Exemplary damages
The landlord also claims exemplary damages. As noted above, exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act. While a breach has been established, for which compensation has been awarded, the landlord has not identified any unlawful act by the tenants. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is not order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant seeks name suppression, the landlord does not. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879086 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879086 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions