What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909293?

The tribunal order states: Patricia Nolan must pay Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4909293?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $208.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $398.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909293?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10603529-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909293?

The tribunal order states: Patricia Nolan must pay Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4909293?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $208.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $398.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909293?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10603529-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 River Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909293 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909293 — net $1,134.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fire damage - excess	$1,150.00	Fire damage - excess
Lock/key replacement	$208.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$398.48	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,134.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,134.92

Order

Patricia Nolan must pay Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited $1,134.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,125.00 (3346413-008) to Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. DescriptionLandlord Fire damage - excess$1,150.00 Lock/key replacement$208.00 Cleaning$483.00 Rubbish removal$398.48 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,259.92 Minus bond- $1,125.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,134.92
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 4 April 2021. The landlord is recorded as “Lifestyle Property Management”, and there were two co-tenants, Patricia and Blair Nolan. However during the tenancy, Mr Nolan moved out of the premises.
During the tenancy, there was a fire that I understand to have been caused by boiling oil on the stove catching on fire.
The tenant later gave notice ending the tenancy.
After the tenant departed the premises, the landlord has claimed for a range of costs as I will set out shortly, the claim is only against Patricia Nolan.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord has claimed for cleaning of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord has produced photographs taken after the tenant had left the premises. The photographs show extensive rubbish and goods left on the premises. The premises were very dirty.
The landlord has also provided an invoice from the cleaning company to the sum of $483.00. The amount claimed seems low given the state the premises were left, but is accepted and ordered in full.
The landlord has also claimed tip fees of $398.48. In support of this claim a receipt from the tip has been provided. As noted above the photographs show considerable rubbish and goods. I note a photograph with a full dump truck of belongings and rubbish that were dumped. This claim is also established and ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

During the tenancy there was a fire. The landlord claims for the insurance excess in relation to property damage and remediation. The landlord states that their understanding of the matter is that the tenant had put oil on the stove which then caught fire, and damaged the premises. The insurance company accepted the remediation claim, minus the excess of $1,150.00.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
In this case, the evidence from the landlord is that the tenant was boiling oil in the kitchen, and when she had left the stove to go to the toilet or some other reason, the pot caught fire. It is well recognised that you should never leave boiling oil unattended in a kitchen, and in circumstances where the tenant left the oil unattended, that must be careless.
The damage is certainly not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proven that the damage is not careless. I find the tenant liable for the insurance excess to remediate the damage.

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
The landlord states the keys were not returned, so rekeying was necessary.
The landlord has provided an invoice from the locksmith for the sum of $208.00.
This claim has been established and is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909293 — net $1,134.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fire damage - excess	$1,150.00	Fire damage - excess
Lock/key replacement	$208.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$398.48	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,134.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,134.92

Order

Patricia Nolan must pay Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited $1,134.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,125.00 (3346413-008) to Lifestyle Property Management Wairarapa Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. DescriptionLandlord Fire damage - excess$1,150.00 Lock/key replacement$208.00 Cleaning$483.00 Rubbish removal$398.48 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,259.92 Minus bond- $1,125.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,134.92
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 4 April 2021. The landlord is recorded as “Lifestyle Property Management”, and there were two co-tenants, Patricia and Blair Nolan. However during the tenancy, Mr Nolan moved out of the premises.
During the tenancy, there was a fire that I understand to have been caused by boiling oil on the stove catching on fire.
The tenant later gave notice ending the tenancy.
After the tenant departed the premises, the landlord has claimed for a range of costs as I will set out shortly, the claim is only against Patricia Nolan.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord has claimed for cleaning of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord has produced photographs taken after the tenant had left the premises. The photographs show extensive rubbish and goods left on the premises. The premises were very dirty.
The landlord has also provided an invoice from the cleaning company to the sum of $483.00. The amount claimed seems low given the state the premises were left, but is accepted and ordered in full.
The landlord has also claimed tip fees of $398.48. In support of this claim a receipt from the tip has been provided. As noted above the photographs show considerable rubbish and goods. I note a photograph with a full dump truck of belongings and rubbish that were dumped. This claim is also established and ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

During the tenancy there was a fire. The landlord claims for the insurance excess in relation to property damage and remediation. The landlord states that their understanding of the matter is that the tenant had put oil on the stove which then caught fire, and damaged the premises. The insurance company accepted the remediation claim, minus the excess of $1,150.00.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
In this case, the evidence from the landlord is that the tenant was boiling oil in the kitchen, and when she had left the stove to go to the toilet or some other reason, the pot caught fire. It is well recognised that you should never leave boiling oil unattended in a kitchen, and in circumstances where the tenant left the oil unattended, that must be careless.
The damage is certainly not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proven that the damage is not careless. I find the tenant liable for the insurance excess to remediate the damage.

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

The landlord has claimed compensation for lock and key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”.
The landlord states the keys were not returned, so rekeying was necessary.
The landlord has provided an invoice from the locksmith for the sum of $208.00.
This claim has been established and is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909293 — Property damage at 7 River Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909293 — Property damage at 7 River Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

LOCK AND KEY REPLACEMENT

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions