What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4888281 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Austar Property Services Limited As Agent For Andy

How much money was awarded in case 4888281?

Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4888281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4888281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10805761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4888281 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Austar Property Services Limited As Agent For Andy

How much money was awarded in case 4888281?

Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4888281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4888281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10805761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Linden Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4888281 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4888281 — net $264.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$264.50	Window repairs
Net award	$264.50
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$264.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Austar Property Services Limited As Agent For Andy Chen $264.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Austar Property Services Limited As Agent For Andy Chen: $264.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,095.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The application for water rates arrears was withdrawn.

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

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 landlord seeks compensation for cleaning carried out after the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $805.00.
The photos provided by the landlord of the premises show premises that are quite dated and in average condition at best. The landlord invoice refers to a “deep clean” having been carried out.
The tenant provided an invoice for professional cleaning at a costs of $977.50. The cleaning was carried out after the end of the tenancy and prior to the landlord’s cleaning.
The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and no more. The landlord refers to a deep clean having been carried out. That is not the standard required of the tenant. In light of the general condition of the premises, I consider that the cleaning carried out by the tenant was sufficient to meet their obligations and the landlord claim for cleaning is dismissed.

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. The excess on the landlord’s insurance cover is such that it is not relevant for the purposes of this hearing.
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:
There is a broken window in the dining room. The landlord’s photos from the commencement of the tenancy show that the window was not broken at that time. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have allowed the claim at $264.50 to include a share of the “materials “ claimed for in the landlord’s invoice.
The landlord says that a gate is missing. The landlord has provided extensive photo evidence. There is no photo showing a gate at the start of the tenancy. The pre tenancy inspection report states “fenced along left-hand side of the property and in front there is no gate due to share driveway”(sic).
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The landlord has not provided sufficient proof to persuade me that it is more likely than not that a gate had been present. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage caused by mould to the curtains.
The pre tenancy inspection report prepared in 2020 states that at that time the curtains needed replacing. A further 4 years has passed since then.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Given the age and condition of the curtains, I make no order for compensation as it is more likely than not that the curtains were of no value. The claim is dismissed.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful and suppression of the tenant name is ordered. The landlord has neither been wholly nor substantially successful and the landlord application for nae suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4888281 — net $264.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$264.50	Window repairs
Net award	$264.50
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$264.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Austar Property Services Limited As Agent For Andy Chen $264.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Austar Property Services Limited As Agent For Andy Chen: $264.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,095.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The application for water rates arrears was withdrawn.

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

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 landlord seeks compensation for cleaning carried out after the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $805.00.
The photos provided by the landlord of the premises show premises that are quite dated and in average condition at best. The landlord invoice refers to a “deep clean” having been carried out.
The tenant provided an invoice for professional cleaning at a costs of $977.50. The cleaning was carried out after the end of the tenancy and prior to the landlord’s cleaning.
The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and no more. The landlord refers to a deep clean having been carried out. That is not the standard required of the tenant. In light of the general condition of the premises, I consider that the cleaning carried out by the tenant was sufficient to meet their obligations and the landlord claim for cleaning is dismissed.

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. The excess on the landlord’s insurance cover is such that it is not relevant for the purposes of this hearing.
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:
There is a broken window in the dining room. The landlord’s photos from the commencement of the tenancy show that the window was not broken at that time. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have allowed the claim at $264.50 to include a share of the “materials “ claimed for in the landlord’s invoice.
The landlord says that a gate is missing. The landlord has provided extensive photo evidence. There is no photo showing a gate at the start of the tenancy. The pre tenancy inspection report states “fenced along left-hand side of the property and in front there is no gate due to share driveway”(sic).
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The landlord has not provided sufficient proof to persuade me that it is more likely than not that a gate had been present. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage caused by mould to the curtains.
The pre tenancy inspection report prepared in 2020 states that at that time the curtains needed replacing. A further 4 years has passed since then.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Given the age and condition of the curtains, I make no order for compensation as it is more likely than not that the curtains were of no value. The claim is dismissed.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful and suppression of the tenant name is ordered. The landlord has neither been wholly nor substantially successful and the landlord application for nae suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4888281 — Property damage at 8 Linden Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4888281 — Property damage at 8 Linden Street, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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