What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4917314 about?

The tribunal order states: Manpreet Kaur Kaur and Maninder Singh Sandhu must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4917314?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $6.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $442.75 awarded to landlord; New Goldair Panel Heater: $146.97 awarded to landlord; Replace And Paint Bedroom Door: $186.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $103.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917314?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917314?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10905819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4917314 about?

The tribunal order states: Manpreet Kaur Kaur and Maninder Singh Sandhu must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4917314?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $6.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $442.75 awarded to landlord; New Goldair Panel Heater: $146.97 awarded to landlord; Replace And Paint Bedroom Door: $186.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $103.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917314?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917314?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10905819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Dowding Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4917314 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917314 — net $2,131.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Remove, clean and rehang curtains	$287.50	Remove, clean and rehang curtains
Rubbish removal	$103.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$477.25	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: replace and paint bedroom door	$186.30	Repairs: replace and paint bedroom door
New Goldair panel heater	$146.97	New Goldair panel heater
Lock/key replacement: 3 sets of locks	$442.75	Lock/key replacement: 3 sets of locks
Replace 4 light bulbs	$6.90	Replace 4 light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,131.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,131.61

[The landlord’s representative] attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone numbers for the tenants, the last three digits being 069 and 777 respectively, were each called twice, without any response.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The property was vacated by the tenants on 8 April 2024. Service

The application was filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy.

Section 91A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that applications filed by a landlord more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy must be served on the tenant either personally, by posting it to an address given to the landlord within 2 months before the application or, by delivering it to the place the tenant now lives or by giving it to the tenant’s solicitor or agent.

The landlord said they have continually tried to call the tenant and the last phone contact they had with the tenants when the tenants answered their phone was about a week after the tenancy ended. The landlord said they have also emailed the tenants to ask for their new addresses, without response.

The landlord has not complied with the requirements of section 91A RTA. The landlord requested an order dispensing with service pursuant to section 91B RTA.

I am satisfied the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to serve the notice on the tenants. I order that the service requirements can be dispensed with and the application hearing can proceed as if the notice has been served on the tenants as per the service requirements in the RTA.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal

The landlord claimed $103.50 for removing rubbish at the end of the tenancy, as they had to remove the tenants’ wooden cabinet and a mattress, as well as red bin rubbish that was not collected by the Council in time for new tenants to move in. Given the photographs provided in the exit inspection report of this, I consider this to be a reasonable cost and award the landlord $103.50 for rubbish removal. Cleaning

The landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports of the property, dated 17 September 2020 and 9 April 2024 respectively. The entry inspection report showed photographs of a clean, tidy and well-maintained property and shows a picture of a white panel heater in the lounge. The exit inspection photographs showed grimy marks and dirt on most surfaces around the house, including on windowsills, doors, window and door frames, kitchen cupboards and drawers, bathroom vanity and floors. There were photographs of the curtains in the lounge and bedrooms, which showed blotches and marks on the curtains. The bathroom toilet, vanity and shower were left dirty. The kitchen stove was not cleaned, and the photographs of the kitchen drawers and cupboards showed dirt and grime also.

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

The landlord claimed $678.50, GST inclusive, for the cost of cleaning the house (separate from the cost claimed for shampooing the carpet and removing, cleaning and rehanging the curtains). The landlord did not know the time spent on cleaning by the company it retained, other than a set price (no hourly rate provided) was paid for an exit clean of the 3 bedroom house, as claimed, and that this company spent two days at the property, likely with at least 2 staff, which involved not only the cleaning but also the rubbish removal, gardening and repairs.

In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find that there was cleaning required for the kitchen stove, the bathroom vanity, toilet and shower, the kitchen cupboards and drawers and some of the windowsills. Some of the photographs indicated some finger marks on doors and window frames that were included in the cleaning cost and were, in my view, in excess of a tenant standard of reasonably clean and tidy. I find that $400.00 plus GST, (which would be equivalent to 10 hours @ $40.00/hour GST exclusive) for a total of $460.00 for cleaning to the tenant standard of reasonably clean and tidy, is a more reasonable cost, given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $460.00 for cleaning. Carpets

The landlord claimed $161.00 for the carpets to be shampooed. There was not much evidence provided as to the requirement for the carpets to be shampooed at the tenant’s cost, other than a couple of photographs of stains on the carpets. Given this insufficient evidence, I dismiss the claim for $161.00 for the carpet shampoo. Curtains

The landlord also claimed $488.75 for the cleaning company to remove, clean and rehang the curtains. They provided photographs of marks on the curtains in the lounge and bedrooms and said the curtains had an odour which needed to also be removed. The landlord said they thought it was more cost-effective to clean the curtains rather than purchase new ones. Given the photographs provided of the marks and blotches on the curtains, I find the curtains likely did need to be removed, cleaned and rehung. However, the cost claimed for doing this of $488.75, I find to be excessive. I find a more reasonable amount for this work to be $250.00 plus GST, for a total of $287.50. Locks

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord said the tenants were provided with 6 keys at the start of the tenancy, to the front door, back door and garage door. All these locks had to be replaced, for security purposes, when the tenants did not return any of these keys, according to the landlord. The landlord claimed $442.75 for labour and materials for replacing all 3 locks. I find this to be a reasonable cost for replacing 3 locks and so award the landlord $442.75 for replacing 3 locks. Garden

The landlord said the tenant did not maintain the garden and lawns and that, at the end of the tenancy, there was a lot of weeding required, the garden’s edges needed to be trimmed and several bags of grass had to be disposed of. The landlord said there were also pieces of rubbish scattered throughout the garden, which had to be picked up. The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the garden, the bags of grass and the rubbish scattered throughout the garden. The landlord claimed $477.25 for weeding the garden, trimming the edges, picking up the rubbish throughout the garden and disposing of the grass waste bags. Given the photographs and other evidence, I find this to be a reasonable cost and award the landlord $477.25 for this garden work. Chattels

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy:

The landlord said they provided a panel heater at the start of the tenancy, which was listed as a chattel in the Tenancy Agreement, and this panel heater was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord initially claimed $279.00 for this heater but, after discussion, agreed that a like-for-like replacement panel heater could be purchased for $146.97. The landlord also showed photographs of 4 missing light bulbs, in the hallway and bathroom and said it cost $6.90 GST inclusive to replace these light bulbs. I find $146.97 as the cost for a replacement panel heater and $6.90 for the cost of replacing 4 light bulbs to be reasonable costs and so award the landlord these costs.

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 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.

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 landlord said the tenants damaged a bedroom door, which needed to be replaced and painted. They provided a photograph of the damaged bedroom door, which showed split wood through the edge of the door by the handle. Given the photograph of the damaged door, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.

In determining compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be place in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.

The landlord has claimed $310.50, GST inclusive, to replace and paint the bedroom door. The landlord pointed to photographs of the bedroom door in the entry report and estimated that the bedroom door was newer than the age of the house, possibly around 10 years old. Given the photographs provided, I find 10 years old to be a reasonable estimate.

Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of interior wooden doors in a rental property is around 25 years. As such, I deduct the $301.50 cost I find reasonable to replace and paint the bedroom door, by 40% for depreciation to an award of $186.30 to replace and paint the bedroom door.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917314 — net $2,131.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Remove, clean and rehang curtains	$287.50	Remove, clean and rehang curtains
Rubbish removal	$103.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$477.25	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: replace and paint bedroom door	$186.30	Repairs: replace and paint bedroom door
New Goldair panel heater	$146.97	New Goldair panel heater
Lock/key replacement: 3 sets of locks	$442.75	Lock/key replacement: 3 sets of locks
Replace 4 light bulbs	$6.90	Replace 4 light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,131.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,131.61

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The property was vacated by the tenants on 8 April 2024. Service

The application was filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has not complied with the requirements of section 91A RTA. The landlord requested an order dispensing with service pursuant to section 91B RTA.

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

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy:

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917314 — Cleanliness at 9 Dowding Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917314 — Cleanliness at 9 Dowding Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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