What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4901796 about?

The tribunal order states: This Order was first issued on 13 January 2025. It has been reissued with a

How much money was awarded in case 4901796?

Cleaning: $219.17 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $233.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4901796 D…: $747.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901796?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11304326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4901796 about?

The tribunal order states: This Order was first issued on 13 January 2025. It has been reissued with a

How much money was awarded in case 4901796?

Cleaning: $219.17 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $233.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4901796 D…: $747.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901796?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11304326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat b, 54 Hampton Terrace, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4901796 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4901796 — net $1,220.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4901796 dated 04/09/2024	$747.81	Previous order application 4901796 dated 04/09/2024
Cleaning	$219.17	Cleaning
Compensation of collection unit costs	$233.00	Compensation of collection unit costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,220.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,220.42

Order

This Order was first issued on 13 January 2025. It has been reissued with a correction.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
Adelle Baird must pay the landlord $987.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
This order incorporates the Sealed Mediator’s Order made on 04 September 2024 under application number 4901796.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the paintwork, carpets and locks are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted via telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not contacted the Tribunal to advise why she would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
On 04 September 2024, a Sealed Mediator’s Order was made in respect of the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, unpaid electricity and water rates. This Order has been incorporated into this Order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Role of the Tribunal:
During the hearing, the landlord raised a number of general complaints regarding the actions of the tenant during the tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal is an adjudicative body. The role of the Tribunal was summarised, correctly in my view, by the Adjudicator in the decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456: The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision binding on the parties.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and has provided photographs of the premises to support this claim. The landlord says that he carried out the cleaning work with his partner and is claiming $250 being 10 hours at $25 per hour for this work and $44.17 reimbursement for hiring of the Rug Doctor.
I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that cleaning of the premises was required. However, I am not satisfied that 10 hours cleaning was required. I award $219.70 being $175 (7 hours at $25 per hour) and the $44.15 to hire the Rug Doctor.
The tenant did not return the keys. However, at the hearing, the landlord said he has not replaced the lock and advised that he does not intend to do so. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the carpet, damage to the walls and the ceiling.
As set out at paragraph 12 above, it is up to the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy. When the Tribunal is called upon to consider claims for damages that have allegedly occurred during the course of a tenancy, it is essential that the Tribunal has some evidence as to the state of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord advised that a property inspection report was not completed at the start of the tenancy and that he did not have any photographs taken immediately before the tenancy commenced. If there are no property inspection reports completed at commencement, or photographs taken to illustrate the condition of the premises, it is virtually impossible to determine whether the damage that is alleged to have occurred was caused by the tenant or was present at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the carpet, the walls or the ceiling occurred during the tenancy and these claims are dismissed. Other claims:
The landlord advised that the tenant has not paid any of the sums due under the Sealed Mediator’s Order and claimed the fee paid to the Collections Unit. The landlord was asked to provide a receipt of this fee by 5pm on Thursday, 09 January 2025. The landlord did so. However, the document was misfiled by the Registry.
This claim is proved. I award $233.00 for this claim. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4901796 — net $1,220.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4901796 dated 04/09/2024	$747.81	Previous order application 4901796 dated 04/09/2024
Cleaning	$219.17	Cleaning
Compensation of collection unit costs	$233.00	Compensation of collection unit costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,220.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,220.42

Order

This Order was first issued on 13 January 2025. It has been reissued with a correction.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
Adelle Baird must pay the landlord $987.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
This order incorporates the Sealed Mediator’s Order made on 04 September 2024 under application number 4901796.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the paintwork, carpets and locks are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted via telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not contacted the Tribunal to advise why she would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
On 04 September 2024, a Sealed Mediator’s Order was made in respect of the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, unpaid electricity and water rates. This Order has been incorporated into this Order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Role of the Tribunal:
During the hearing, the landlord raised a number of general complaints regarding the actions of the tenant during the tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal is an adjudicative body. The role of the Tribunal was summarised, correctly in my view, by the Adjudicator in the decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456: The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision binding on the parties.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and has provided photographs of the premises to support this claim. The landlord says that he carried out the cleaning work with his partner and is claiming $250 being 10 hours at $25 per hour for this work and $44.17 reimbursement for hiring of the Rug Doctor.
I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that cleaning of the premises was required. However, I am not satisfied that 10 hours cleaning was required. I award $219.70 being $175 (7 hours at $25 per hour) and the $44.15 to hire the Rug Doctor.
The tenant did not return the keys. However, at the hearing, the landlord said he has not replaced the lock and advised that he does not intend to do so. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the carpet, damage to the walls and the ceiling.
As set out at paragraph 12 above, it is up to the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy. When the Tribunal is called upon to consider claims for damages that have allegedly occurred during the course of a tenancy, it is essential that the Tribunal has some evidence as to the state of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord advised that a property inspection report was not completed at the start of the tenancy and that he did not have any photographs taken immediately before the tenancy commenced. If there are no property inspection reports completed at commencement, or photographs taken to illustrate the condition of the premises, it is virtually impossible to determine whether the damage that is alleged to have occurred was caused by the tenant or was present at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the carpet, the walls or the ceiling occurred during the tenancy and these claims are dismissed. Other claims:
The landlord advised that the tenant has not paid any of the sums due under the Sealed Mediator’s Order and claimed the fee paid to the Collections Unit. The landlord was asked to provide a receipt of this fee by 5pm on Thursday, 09 January 2025. The landlord did so. However, the document was misfiled by the Registry.
This claim is proved. I award $233.00 for this claim. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901796 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat b, 54 Hampton Terrace, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901796 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat b, 54 Hampton Terrace, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Did the tenant comply with her 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