What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892381?

The tribunal order states: Mitchell Edward Devonshire and Selesetina Avefua Nua must pay Indianna Sky

How much money was awarded in case 4892381?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $520.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892381?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10681951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892381?

The tribunal order states: Mitchell Edward Devonshire and Selesetina Avefua Nua must pay Indianna Sky

How much money was awarded in case 4892381?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $520.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892381?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10681951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

431 Tane Road, Opiki, RD 4, Palmerston North 4474 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892381 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

431 Tane Road, Opiki, RD 4, Palmerston North 4474 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892381 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892381 — net $341.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$700.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$300.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Rubbish removal	$520.81	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: carpets	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$341.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$341.25

Claims and awards for application 4892381 — net $341.25 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Replace furnishings: curtains

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: curtains

Rubbish removal

Amount: $520.81
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace furnishings: carpets

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: carpets

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Mitchell Edward Devonshire and Selesetina Avefua Nua must pay Indianna Sky Kerr $341.25 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5944539-001) to Indianna Sky Kerr immediately.
The tenant is to deliver the keys to the premises to the premises’ neighbour by 5 pm Friday 9 August 2024. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$700.00 Cleaning$400.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$300.00 Rubbish removal$520.81 Replace furnishings: carpets$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,941.25 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$341.25

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone and the tenant attended the hearing in person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for the landlord to provide the evidence necessary to prove her claims. If she fails to do so then her application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the landlord to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy ending on 25 May 2024. The parties agreed that the tenant would vacate the premises on 22 March 2024 but would pay the landlord rent until 2 April 2024 by way of compensation for agreeing to end the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (“RTA”).
The tenant advised that they had done their best to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and believed that they had done so.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and gave verbal evidence of the cleaning that was required to bring the property up to what she considered a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling: for example, rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness”, so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants or to prepare the property for sale, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
In this case, the landlord was preparing the property to be photographed as the property was to be put on the market. The landlord wanted the property presented to a high standard including the cleaning of windows, skirtings and ceilings. The landlord gave evidence that the property required vacuum cleaning, floors and surfaces cleaned. The landlord’s photographs supported her claim to some extent.
From the photographic and verbal evidence, the landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of the probabilities that there were some areas which were not left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. It is appropriate to award a sum that the Tribunal regularly sees charged for such cleaning and to include an amount for the landlord’s time in removing the tenant’s rubbish.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of rubbish and other items left behind by the tenant. The tenant did not dispute that the items remained and that they intended removing them, however they did not do so.
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not allow them sufficient extra time to complete this task.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenant did not remove all rubbish within the agreed time frame and was responsible for removing these items. The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that she should be compensated for the removal of the tenant’s rubbish and other items.
The tenant had not returned the keys at the time of the hearing. The tenant agreed to return the keys to the premises’ neighbour by 5 pm tomorrow Friday 9 August 2024. If the tenant fails to do so then the tenant will be in breach of an order of the Tribunal and the landlord can make a new application for the costs of replacing the keys and locks to the property. The landlord should attach a copy of this Order to her application.
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.
The tenant accepted that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A set of curtains in a bedroom were damaged. b. The carpets in three rooms were damaged beyond repair by the tenant’s dogs’ urine.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has responsibly accepted liability for the damage.
The landlord explained that the cost of replacing the curtains was $1,200.00 and advised that the curtains were some six years old. The IRD’s depreciation guidelines indicate that curtains have an estimated useful life of eight years. The curtains therefore had an estimated further two years of life left. It is therefore appropriate to award the landlord one quarter of the amount claimed being the residual value of the curtains.
The landlord explained that her insurance company applied three separate excesses to the carpet damage as it involved three separate rooms. She confirmed that one room has been recarpeted and she has been paid out a lump sum in respect of the other two rooms but that they have not been recarpeted.
The Tribunal is satisfied by the extent of the damage caused by dog urine that it is intentional damage. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The tenant is therefore responsible for the total cost of the damage.
The landlord has only claimed the amount of her excesses. She is entitled to be reimbursed for the insurance excess for the room which has been recarpeted.
The landlord claims that she has suffered a loss in value in her property because two rooms are not carpeted. It is noted that the landlord has chosen not to recarpet these rooms for her own reasons. The landlord also claimed that dark marks in the wooden flooring was caused by the urine. However, the landlord has not proven that these marks were not present at the start of the tenancy, nor that they were caused by the urine. On the evidence before the Tribunal, her claim in respect of the dark marks has not been proven on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal accepts that were it not for the damage caused by the tenant’s dogs, she would not have had to remove the carpet. Quantifying such loss is problematic. The carpets were at the end of their useful life but were still serviceable and would not have required replacement. It is appropriate to award the excess for one room of $650.00 plus a further $350.00 by way of compensation for the fact that two rooms are now uncarpeted and that this is a loss suffered by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Indianna Sky Kerr has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892381 — net $341.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$700.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$300.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Rubbish removal	$520.81	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: carpets	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$341.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$341.25

Claims and awards for application 4892381 — net $341.25 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Replace furnishings: curtains

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: curtains

Rubbish removal

Amount: $520.81
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace furnishings: carpets

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: carpets

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Mitchell Edward Devonshire and Selesetina Avefua Nua must pay Indianna Sky Kerr $341.25 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5944539-001) to Indianna Sky Kerr immediately.
The tenant is to deliver the keys to the premises to the premises’ neighbour by 5 pm Friday 9 August 2024. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$700.00 Cleaning$400.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$300.00 Rubbish removal$520.81 Replace furnishings: carpets$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,941.25 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$341.25

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone and the tenant attended the hearing in person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for the landlord to provide the evidence necessary to prove her claims. If she fails to do so then her application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the landlord to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy ending on 25 May 2024. The parties agreed that the tenant would vacate the premises on 22 March 2024 but would pay the landlord rent until 2 April 2024 by way of compensation for agreeing to end the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (“RTA”).
The tenant advised that they had done their best to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and believed that they had done so.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and gave verbal evidence of the cleaning that was required to bring the property up to what she considered a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling: for example, rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness”, so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants or to prepare the property for sale, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
In this case, the landlord was preparing the property to be photographed as the property was to be put on the market. The landlord wanted the property presented to a high standard including the cleaning of windows, skirtings and ceilings. The landlord gave evidence that the property required vacuum cleaning, floors and surfaces cleaned. The landlord’s photographs supported her claim to some extent.
From the photographic and verbal evidence, the landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of the probabilities that there were some areas which were not left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. It is appropriate to award a sum that the Tribunal regularly sees charged for such cleaning and to include an amount for the landlord’s time in removing the tenant’s rubbish.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of rubbish and other items left behind by the tenant. The tenant did not dispute that the items remained and that they intended removing them, however they did not do so.
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not allow them sufficient extra time to complete this task.
The Tribunal accepts that the tenant did not remove all rubbish within the agreed time frame and was responsible for removing these items. The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that she should be compensated for the removal of the tenant’s rubbish and other items.
The tenant had not returned the keys at the time of the hearing. The tenant agreed to return the keys to the premises’ neighbour by 5 pm tomorrow Friday 9 August 2024. If the tenant fails to do so then the tenant will be in breach of an order of the Tribunal and the landlord can make a new application for the costs of replacing the keys and locks to the property. The landlord should attach a copy of this Order to her application.
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.
The tenant accepted that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A set of curtains in a bedroom were damaged. b. The carpets in three rooms were damaged beyond repair by the tenant’s dogs’ urine.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has responsibly accepted liability for the damage.
The landlord explained that the cost of replacing the curtains was $1,200.00 and advised that the curtains were some six years old. The IRD’s depreciation guidelines indicate that curtains have an estimated useful life of eight years. The curtains therefore had an estimated further two years of life left. It is therefore appropriate to award the landlord one quarter of the amount claimed being the residual value of the curtains.
The landlord explained that her insurance company applied three separate excesses to the carpet damage as it involved three separate rooms. She confirmed that one room has been recarpeted and she has been paid out a lump sum in respect of the other two rooms but that they have not been recarpeted.
The Tribunal is satisfied by the extent of the damage caused by dog urine that it is intentional damage. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The tenant is therefore responsible for the total cost of the damage.
The landlord has only claimed the amount of her excesses. She is entitled to be reimbursed for the insurance excess for the room which has been recarpeted.
The landlord claims that she has suffered a loss in value in her property because two rooms are not carpeted. It is noted that the landlord has chosen not to recarpet these rooms for her own reasons. The landlord also claimed that dark marks in the wooden flooring was caused by the urine. However, the landlord has not proven that these marks were not present at the start of the tenancy, nor that they were caused by the urine. On the evidence before the Tribunal, her claim in respect of the dark marks has not been proven on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal accepts that were it not for the damage caused by the tenant’s dogs, she would not have had to remove the carpet. Quantifying such loss is problematic. The carpets were at the end of their useful life but were still serviceable and would not have required replacement. It is appropriate to award the excess for one room of $650.00 plus a further $350.00 by way of compensation for the fact that two rooms are now uncarpeted and that this is a loss suffered by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Indianna Sky Kerr has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892381 — Rent arrears at 431 Tane Road, Opiki, RD 4, Palmerston North 4474

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892381 — Rent arrears at 431 Tane Road, Opiki, RD 4, Palmerston North 4474

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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