What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4884926?

The tribunal order states: David Russell, Karen Russell, Isla Russell and Seb Torrens must pay Stephanie

How much money was awarded in case 4884926?

Cleaning: $435.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884926?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10804840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4884926?

The tribunal order states: David Russell, Karen Russell, Isla Russell and Seb Torrens must pay Stephanie

How much money was awarded in case 4884926?

Cleaning: $435.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884926?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10804840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

499A Tahuroa Road, Tauwhare, RD 1, Hamilton 3371 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4884926 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884926 — net $1,805.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Concept/inside	$350.00	Cleaning: Concept/inside
Carpet Cleaning	$435.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Oldson/outside and extra areas	$200.00	Cleaning: Oldson/outside and extra areas
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,805.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,805.44

Order

David Russell, Karen Russell, Isla Russell and Seb Torrens must pay Stephanie King and James Donald King $1,805.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant informed the Tribunal that they were not going to attend and supplied a written statement for consideration.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been refunded to the landlord prior to this hearing for rent arrears.
The premises are a 5 bedroomed house with open plan living and dining area with a downstairs rumpus room. The landlords said that the premises had been recarpeted and repainted prior to this tenancy starting. The tenant were 4 adults and a baby.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and paid for a professional cleaner. The tenants claimed that they had also engaged a professional cleaner and provided copies of payments made.
The landlord said that the cleaner did not do a good enough job and provided photographs of areas that needed to be wiped down, dirty light fittings and some walls that required wiping. The landlord said that they also went and cleaned some areas inside which formed part of the cleaning invoice from Oldson cleaners.
I do not find that the evidence supported another $1000.00 worth of cleaning was required after the tenants left the premises. This amount is calculated by adding the Concept account to half the Oldson account.
The standard that a tenant is required to leave a premises is reasonably clean and on the basis of the evidence provided I award $350.00 for the inside cleaning by Concept.
There was less evidence provided cleaning claim for the outside and extra areas. An amount is awarded to reflect the cleaning of the carport and rumpus area as claimed in the Oldson invoice.
The landlord claimed for carpet cleaning of the whole house and provided photographs of stained carpets in six rooms. There was no photograph of the hallway carpet and the amount awarded is reduced to reflect this.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A glass door in the downstairs laundry was broken.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant said in their statement that this occurred during high winds and there was no stay to secure the door in these events. The landlord said they had no other information but were told of the damage early in the tenancy and believe that the tenants were going to fix it. They do not have insurance for glass cover.
I find that this damage is accidental and is dismissed. Smoke alarms.
Stephanie King and James Donald King claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords provided a photograph of the removed alarm with the batteries removed and an invoice confirming the purchase prior to the start of the tenancy.
The tenant wrote that they removed the smoke alarms while cleaning and accidentally did not replace it.They also claimed that it was in the wrong position in the premises.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The removal of the alarm was intentional, and this is an important safety device which protects the tenants, visitors and the premises. There was no evidence given as to when or how long the premises were without working smoke alarms because the tenants have chosen not to attend the hearing. The effect of this act is to put lives and property in danger. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $800.00.
Because Stephanie King, James Donald King has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884926 — net $1,805.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Concept/inside	$350.00	Cleaning: Concept/inside
Carpet Cleaning	$435.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Oldson/outside and extra areas	$200.00	Cleaning: Oldson/outside and extra areas
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,805.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,805.44

Order

David Russell, Karen Russell, Isla Russell and Seb Torrens must pay Stephanie King and James Donald King $1,805.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant informed the Tribunal that they were not going to attend and supplied a written statement for consideration.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been refunded to the landlord prior to this hearing for rent arrears.
The premises are a 5 bedroomed house with open plan living and dining area with a downstairs rumpus room. The landlords said that the premises had been recarpeted and repainted prior to this tenancy starting. The tenant were 4 adults and a baby.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and paid for a professional cleaner. The tenants claimed that they had also engaged a professional cleaner and provided copies of payments made.
The landlord said that the cleaner did not do a good enough job and provided photographs of areas that needed to be wiped down, dirty light fittings and some walls that required wiping. The landlord said that they also went and cleaned some areas inside which formed part of the cleaning invoice from Oldson cleaners.
I do not find that the evidence supported another $1000.00 worth of cleaning was required after the tenants left the premises. This amount is calculated by adding the Concept account to half the Oldson account.
The standard that a tenant is required to leave a premises is reasonably clean and on the basis of the evidence provided I award $350.00 for the inside cleaning by Concept.
There was less evidence provided cleaning claim for the outside and extra areas. An amount is awarded to reflect the cleaning of the carport and rumpus area as claimed in the Oldson invoice.
The landlord claimed for carpet cleaning of the whole house and provided photographs of stained carpets in six rooms. There was no photograph of the hallway carpet and the amount awarded is reduced to reflect this.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A glass door in the downstairs laundry was broken.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant said in their statement that this occurred during high winds and there was no stay to secure the door in these events. The landlord said they had no other information but were told of the damage early in the tenancy and believe that the tenants were going to fix it. They do not have insurance for glass cover.
I find that this damage is accidental and is dismissed. Smoke alarms.
Stephanie King and James Donald King claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords provided a photograph of the removed alarm with the batteries removed and an invoice confirming the purchase prior to the start of the tenancy.
The tenant wrote that they removed the smoke alarms while cleaning and accidentally did not replace it.They also claimed that it was in the wrong position in the premises.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The removal of the alarm was intentional, and this is an important safety device which protects the tenants, visitors and the premises. There was no evidence given as to when or how long the premises were without working smoke alarms because the tenants have chosen not to attend the hearing. The effect of this act is to put lives and property in danger. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $800.00.
Because Stephanie King, James Donald King has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884926 — Cleanliness at 499A Tahuroa Road, Tauwhare, RD 1, Hamilton 3371

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884926 — Cleanliness at 499A Tahuroa Road, Tauwhare, RD 1, Hamilton 3371

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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