What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924693 about?

The tribunal order states: Sema Tiumalu must pay [The landlord/s] $18,468.96 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4924693?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $17,458.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924693?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10834361-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4924693 about?

The tribunal order states: Sema Tiumalu must pay [The landlord/s] $18,468.96 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4924693?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $17,458.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924693?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10834361-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17A Gilbert Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4924693 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4924693 — net $18,468.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$17,458.96	Rent arrears
Repairs: Insurance excess	$1,000.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Skirting	$300.00	Repairs: Skirting
Net award	$18,468.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,468.96

Order

Sema Tiumalu must pay [The landlord/s] $18,468.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing.
The tenant did not attend by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant at the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls could not be connected. The landlord confirmed the number. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 29 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $17,458.24. The tenant continued to pay rent sporadically until 31 January 2024. The landlord attempted to communicate with the tenant and eventually filed this application 2 July 2024 by which time the tenancy had already ended.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord has claimed for 50 hours work and a rate of $50.00 per hour for cleaning. The Tribunal generally considers a rate of $25.00 per hour appropriate for landlord labour and I propose applying that rate.
I have viewed the photos provided and the general state of the premises. There is no doubt that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord evidence was that the work carried out by them was to bring the premises back to a state where they could be relet to new tenants. That standard is considered generally to be higher than the standard required of a tenant, namely reasonably clean and tidy.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that a claim of 25 hours at $25.00 per hour would be reasonable to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the tenant is ordered to pay $625.00 to the landlord for cleaning.
The landlord seeks $200.00 for rubbish removal, rubbish having been left both under the house and in the surrounds. The claim is reasonable.
The landlord seeks $100.00 for lawnmowing. The photos indicate that the claim is reasonable.
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. The landlord is insured and the policy of insurance has an excess of $1,000.00.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Skirting has been removed from the building. Repairs took the landlord 12 hours. I have included the labour rate of $25.00 per hour. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant must pay compensation of $300.00.
Extensive repairs and painting was required throughout the house. The landlord has provided both before and after photos as well as an estimate and the final invoice for $6,900.00. The landlord is insured. The policy excess is $1,000.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. As the landlord has been wholly successful, suppression of the landlord name only is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4924693 — net $18,468.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$17,458.96	Rent arrears
Repairs: Insurance excess	$1,000.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Skirting	$300.00	Repairs: Skirting
Net award	$18,468.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,468.96

Order

Sema Tiumalu must pay [The landlord/s] $18,468.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing.
The tenant did not attend by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant at the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls could not be connected. The landlord confirmed the number. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 29 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $17,458.24. The tenant continued to pay rent sporadically until 31 January 2024. The landlord attempted to communicate with the tenant and eventually filed this application 2 July 2024 by which time the tenancy had already ended.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord has claimed for 50 hours work and a rate of $50.00 per hour for cleaning. The Tribunal generally considers a rate of $25.00 per hour appropriate for landlord labour and I propose applying that rate.
I have viewed the photos provided and the general state of the premises. There is no doubt that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord evidence was that the work carried out by them was to bring the premises back to a state where they could be relet to new tenants. That standard is considered generally to be higher than the standard required of a tenant, namely reasonably clean and tidy.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that a claim of 25 hours at $25.00 per hour would be reasonable to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the tenant is ordered to pay $625.00 to the landlord for cleaning.
The landlord seeks $200.00 for rubbish removal, rubbish having been left both under the house and in the surrounds. The claim is reasonable.
The landlord seeks $100.00 for lawnmowing. The photos indicate that the claim is reasonable.
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. The landlord is insured and the policy of insurance has an excess of $1,000.00.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Skirting has been removed from the building. Repairs took the landlord 12 hours. I have included the labour rate of $25.00 per hour. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant must pay compensation of $300.00.
Extensive repairs and painting was required throughout the house. The landlord has provided both before and after photos as well as an estimate and the final invoice for $6,900.00. The landlord is insured. The policy excess is $1,000.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. As the landlord has been wholly successful, suppression of the landlord name only is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924693 — Rent arrears at 17A Gilbert Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924693 — Rent arrears at 17A Gilbert Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

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

How much is owed for rent ?

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