What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921218 about?

The tribunal order states: Asaeli Seruvatu and Maca Seruvatu must pay [The landlord/s] $2,075.56

How much money was awarded in case 4921218?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $715.06 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bedroom 3 - car…: $374.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Hallway Carpet: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921218?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921218?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921218 about?

The tribunal order states: Asaeli Seruvatu and Maca Seruvatu must pay [The landlord/s] $2,075.56

How much money was awarded in case 4921218?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $715.06 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bedroom 3 - car…: $374.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Hallway Carpet: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921218?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921218?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Alice Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921218 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921218 — net $2,075.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: broken window	$236.50	Window repairs: broken window
Replace furnishings: bedroom 3 - carpet contribution	$374.50	Replace furnishings: bedroom 3 - carpet contribution
Lawns and Garden work	$715.06	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,075.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,075.56

[The landlord’s representatives] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr & Mrs Seruvatu, the tenants, also attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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”). Cleaning

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the tenant left the oven dirty, fly spots on the light fittings, dirty ranch sliders, dirty skirting boards, a wall beside the stove that was splattered with oil and food, and a dirty warming drawer under the oven. The landlord said they asked the tenant to clean the property again and gave them a couple of days after they left the property on 17 April 2024, in which to rectify the cleaning. The landlord acknowledged that the tenant then left the stove and oven and other items clean but said they still had not cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Whilst the landlord provided an entry inspection report dated 9 April 2021, their exit inspection report dated 15 May 2024 contained information and photographs which the landlord said the comments were noted and photographs taken after all the rectification work was undertaken. So, apart from some separate photographs provided at the hearing by the landlord as examples of the cleaning standard of the tenant, which included photographs of two ranch sliders, one in the dining room and one in the lounge, caked with heavy dirt, a light fitting showing fly spots, the wall by the oven with food and oil splatters and some food stains inside the oven’s warming drawer, there were no other photographs of the condition of the rest of the property, in relation to cleanliness, at the time the tenant finished cleaning, and before the landlord’s rectification work was completed.

Further, the invoice provided by the landlord for the cleaning claim was handwritten, undated, did not provide a narrative of cleaning jobs undertaken, did not include an indication of time taken or hourly rate, nor was there an address for the cleaning business on the invoice. The invoice contained the name of the individual who did the cleaning, the tenancy address, the due date for the invoice and an amount of $450.00 for cleaning.

The tenant said they had kept the property clean when they lived there and had cleaned for a couple of days after leaving. They disputed that the ranch slider in the dining room was left dirty, said they could not get to the dirt in the ranch slider in the lounge because of the unsafe condition of the floor in front of it, indicated that they cleaned the wall beside the oven and the warming drawer under the oven and that they cleaned the light fittings. The tenant disputed the cleaning cost was required. The tenants believed the separate photographs showing dirt in the items outlined above that were provided by the landlord were taken before they did their final clean, which the landlord disputed.

Whilst the landlord did not provide photographs of the whole property showing why the cleaning cost claimed was required, the handful of photographs they provided at the hearing, which they confirmed were taken on 25 April 2024, after the tenants had finished their final cleaning and left the property, indicated there were several areas requiring cleaning at that date. I accept the landlord’s evidence that these photographs were taken on 25 April 2024, after the tenant’s final cleaning. In the circumstances and given the evidence from the landlord that they believed their cleaner’s hourly rate was between $45-50.00/hour, I find it reasonable that the landlord be awarded cleaning costs appropriate to what has been seen in the handful of post-tenancy photographs they provided as to cleanliness. Based on these photographs, and considering that the property was to be left reasonably clean and tidy according to a tenant’s standard, I find it reasonable to award 3 hours @ $50.00/hour, plus GST, which comes to $172.50, for cleaning the areas which have been shown to require cleaning. Gardening

The landlord claimed $715.06 for weeding and gardening work required to bring the garden to the standard it was at the start of the tenancy. They provided an invoice in this amount. The landlord provided photographs of the grounds before and after the tenancy, showing extensive weeds that covered a previously concreted area, piles of green waste and other issues. The tenants acknowledged they had not looked after the garden. Given the evidence, I find the cost of $715.06 for gardening, weeding and dumping the green waste, as claimed by the landlord to be reasonable and award the landlord this. Cleaning the carpet

The landlord claimed $1,029.03 for cleaning the carpet throughout the property professionally. The landlord said the carpet had to be cleaned twice in places and became quite wet, which then required dehumidifiers to be set up at the property for a couple of days to dry out the carpet. The landlord said the carpet had to be cleaned because it smelled of rat urine.

The tenants acknowledged there had been rats at the property, since early in their tenancy, and indicated they had not told the landlord about this, as they believed they had to sort out this pest problem themselves, which they felt they did. The tenants did not believe the carpet smelled of rat urine or that there was a need to have the carpets treated and steam cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

Despite the property manager explaining there were 3-monthly property inspections, the property manager said the tenants had not told them about the rats and had their belongings and furniture stacked up, so the rat problem was not visible during their routine inspections. There were no recent routine inspection reports provided by the landlord however that noted any smell of urine at the house, in the carpets or otherwise.

In relation to carpet cleaning, the exit inspection report noted that the last professional carpet clean was on 14 May 2024, after the tenancy ended. The invoice from the carpet cleaner noted the carpet was “heavily soiled” but there was no mention of a urine smell.

Given the tenants dispute there was any urine smell from the carpet, the landlord would need to provide additional supporting evidence to show the carpet likely had a urine smell from the rats. As this has not been mentioned in any inspection report or even on the narrative on the invoice from the carpet cleaner, I find this falls short of providing sufficient additional supporting evidence to prove the claim that the cost of carpet cleaning was likely required. As such, the claim for the cost of carpet cleaning is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Missing window pane a. The tenant admitted to a missing windowpane and agreed to pay the landlord $236.50 claimed for a new windowpane. Burn marks on carpet in bedroom 3 b. The tenant admitted to their daughter likely causing some burn marks on the carpet in bedroom 3. As there were also marks on the carpet that pre- dated the tenancy, the landlord sought a 35% contribution by the tenants to the total cost quoted to replace the carpet in bedroom 3, which was $1,070.00. A 35% contribution to the total cost of a carpet in bedroom 3 would be $374.50, which the tenants agreed to pay. Damage to hallway carpet c. The landlord said that the tenants had caused damage to the hallway carpet, which was from a rat chewing through the hallway carpet under the hot water cylinder cupboard. The property manager said the hole in the carpet from this was visible even when the cupboard door was closed. The landlord said that usually they explore the possibility of patching an area like this with other similar carpet, but this option was not available for this particular hallway carpet, as there was no ‘donor’ carpet available that matched the current carpet. As such, the landlord claimed the cost of replacing the hallway carpet and provided a quote to do so for $1,665.00. The landlord confirmed that they have been unable to do this so far due to the cost but said they definitely will proceed with replacing the hallway carpet if awarded this. d. The tenants admitted the rats likely had chewed through the hallway carpet and caused the hole in the carpet under the hot water cylinder cupboard. They said they had tried to manage this pest problem and had obtained advice from a professional to do so, but despite all their strategies to manage this, including putting down ‘rat biscuits’, some of the larger rats persisted. Given the evidence, I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap. e. Given that I find this damage to the carpet to be careless by the tenants, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the insurance excess here. The Tenancy Agreement sets out the insurance excess is “$550.00 per event – standard excess”. As such, I award the landlord $550.00 as the insurance excess for the hallway carpet. Net curtains f.The landlord said the tenants had left the net curtains at the property damaged as they were torn and had holes in them. The landlord pointed to the entry inspection report showing net curtains in most of the rooms. However, the landlord did not provide any photographs of the condition of the net curtains at the end of the tenancy, showing the torn and holey condition of these, as alleged. The tenants said they had purchased their own net curtains to use and had left the landlord’s net curtains folded up in the cupboard. The landlord claimed $287.00 for the cost of new net curtains. As the landlord did not provide any photographic evidence or other additional supporting evidence as to the condition of the net curtains at the end of the tenancy, I find there is insufficient evidence that the net curtains were likely damaged during the tenancy. As such, this claim is dismissed. Garage door g.The landlord claimed that the tenants had damaged the garage door at the property and provided photographs that the side of the garage door did not fit into its rails or go up and down properly and said that the locking mechanism was missing. The landlord claimed $2,405.80, GST inclusive, to remove and replace the garage door by way of a quote from [supplier]. The landlord said the owner had not yet had the garage door replaced due to the cost of other issues at the property, which had not been claimed by the owner and was awaiting the outcome of the application to determine this matter. h.The tenants emphasised that the garage door was in the same condition at the start of the tenancy. Mr Seruvatu said he had found a way to open the garage door by rigging up his own wire to it when living at the property, but that the door did not open properly right from the start of the tenancy. The tenants said they had not mentioned the issues they had with the garage door from the start of the tenancy to the landlord. i.The landlord pointed out their entry inspection report said the garage/carport was “undamaged” and “working”. This was a general comment about “garage/carport” and did not directly relate to the garage door itself, however. It was very difficult to tell the condition of the garage door from photographs in the entry inspection report, as these were taken at some distance. j.The landlord also provided photographs of the outside of the garage at the start of the tenancy, which showed a handle on the lower garage door, which was not there in the exit inspection photographs. k.Given the tenants’ evidence that the garage door was in the same condition and did not work properly at the start of the tenancy, the landlord needed to provide additional supporting evidence to prove the garage door was likely damaged during the tenancy. As there were no clear, more close-up photographs of the condition of the garage door at the start of the tenancy, particularly the inside of the garage door, nor was there any other additional supporting evidence, such as any routine property inspection reports about any damage to the garage door during the tenancy period for example, I find there is insufficient evidence provided to prove the garage door was likely damaged to the extent claimed during the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Any damage found above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

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

The landlord requested name suppression. The tenants did not request name suppression.

As the landlord has had success with the claim, they are 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 4921218 — net $2,075.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: broken window	$236.50	Window repairs: broken window
Replace furnishings: bedroom 3 - carpet contribution	$374.50	Replace furnishings: bedroom 3 - carpet contribution
Lawns and Garden work	$715.06	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Hallway carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,075.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,075.56

[The landlord’s representatives] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr & Mrs Seruvatu, the tenants, also attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Any damage found above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

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

The landlord requested name suppression. The tenants did not request name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921218 — Property damage at 22 Alice Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921218 — Property damage at 22 Alice Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

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