What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4921978?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Palmer to pay Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore

How much money was awarded in case 4921978?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921978?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921978?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10799858-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4921978?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Palmer to pay Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore

How much money was awarded in case 4921978?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921978?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921978?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10799858-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80C Coster Street, Stoke, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921978 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921978 — net $190.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$190.44
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$190.44

Order

Nathan Palmer to pay Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore Family Trust $190.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6456234-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore Family Trust: $190.44 Nathan Palmer: $2,409.56
The tenant is to pay the landlord the sum of $190.44 immediately for carpet cleaning and reimbursement of filing fee, as calculated and set out below:
All the other landlord claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, 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. 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 tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but there were some stains left in the carpet.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report and photos of the stains. The stains are more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice from dated 28 June 2024 from Intensive Carpet Cleaning Limited for $170.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord has been successful with their claim for the carpet cleaning.
The landlord was claiming for cleaning costs also. I have been provided with extensive videos of the property at the end of the tenancy and I find the property was reasonably clean and tidy, other than the carpet spot cleaning.
The issue of the cleaning was complicated by the fact that the landlord photos for the final inspection were taken on the 5 th of June 2024 and sent to the tenant. The tenant went back to the property on the 6 th of June 2024 and did further cleaning. The videos taken by the tenant were after he has done the second clean.
The landlord has not proven their claim for the cleaning costs.

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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Scuffing, scratches, and small dents in the walls.
The landlord claims this was damage, and the tenant should pay the cost of $290.38 for the repairs to the walls.
The tenant says this is simply wear and tear due to normal living in the property.
I agree with the tenant. This is simply the expected outcome of people living in a property going about their normal daily business.
This was a new build at the commencement of the tenancy. It is unreasonable for a landlord to expect the property to be in pristine condition after tenants have lived in the property for two years.
The damage is not more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
The bond is to be refunded by the Bond Centre, to the parties as set out paragraph 2 of the Order.
Because Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921978 — net $190.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$190.44
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$190.44

Order

Nathan Palmer to pay Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore Family Trust $190.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6456234-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore Family Trust: $190.44 Nathan Palmer: $2,409.56
The tenant is to pay the landlord the sum of $190.44 immediately for carpet cleaning and reimbursement of filing fee, as calculated and set out below:
All the other landlord claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, 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. 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 tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but there were some stains left in the carpet.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report and photos of the stains. The stains are more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice from dated 28 June 2024 from Intensive Carpet Cleaning Limited for $170.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord has been successful with their claim for the carpet cleaning.
The landlord was claiming for cleaning costs also. I have been provided with extensive videos of the property at the end of the tenancy and I find the property was reasonably clean and tidy, other than the carpet spot cleaning.
The issue of the cleaning was complicated by the fact that the landlord photos for the final inspection were taken on the 5 th of June 2024 and sent to the tenant. The tenant went back to the property on the 6 th of June 2024 and did further cleaning. The videos taken by the tenant were after he has done the second clean.
The landlord has not proven their claim for the cleaning costs.

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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Scuffing, scratches, and small dents in the walls.
The landlord claims this was damage, and the tenant should pay the cost of $290.38 for the repairs to the walls.
The tenant says this is simply wear and tear due to normal living in the property.
I agree with the tenant. This is simply the expected outcome of people living in a property going about their normal daily business.
This was a new build at the commencement of the tenancy. It is unreasonable for a landlord to expect the property to be in pristine condition after tenants have lived in the property for two years.
The damage is not more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
The bond is to be refunded by the Bond Centre, to the parties as set out paragraph 2 of the Order.
Because Myplace Management Limited as Agent for Ashmore Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921978 — Cleanliness at 80C Coster Street, Stoke, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921978 — Cleanliness at 80C Coster Street, Stoke, Nelson 7011

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions