What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936894 about?

The tribunal order states: Tuainekore Pepe Tepai must pay [The landlord/s] $1,177.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4936894?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936894?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10752905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936894 about?

The tribunal order states: Tuainekore Pepe Tepai must pay [The landlord/s] $1,177.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4936894?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936894?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10752905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4936894 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4936894 — net $1,177.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement insurance excess	$550.00	Carpet replacement insurance excess
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$200.00	Rubbish removal: and lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,177.00

The landlord attended the hearing on 26 August 2024

The tenant did not attend by Teams video link and telephone calls to the tenant number went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.

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?

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 cleaning claimed for by the landlord is for what is often called a “deep clean”. Cleaning of this nature is to bring premises back to a state where they could be relet. It is generally considered that this is a higher standard than that required of a tenant which is reasonably clean and tidy. Having reviewed the landlord photos and the invoice, I consider compensation of $400.00 would be reasonable.

Similarly, the landlord has claimed for rubbish removal and garden work. Items included in the invoice are matters that I do not consider a tenant is responsible for. As an example, the landlord claims for trimming trees and cutting hedges. Those are not tenant obligations. I have reduced the landlord claim from $580.75 to $200.00 as some of the work claimed was a tenant responsibility.

The amounts ordered are proven.

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. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00.

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 carpet was damaged throughout the house. The landlord provided photos of the stained areas. The carpet cleaner said that the areas simply could not be cleaned. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The carpet has been replaced at a cost of $4,103.44. The insurance excess is $550.00. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $550.00.

The landlord has been substantially successful and the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.

The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4936894 — net $1,177.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement insurance excess	$550.00	Carpet replacement insurance excess
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$200.00	Rubbish removal: and lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,177.00

The landlord attended the hearing on 26 August 2024

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 proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The carpet has been replaced at a cost of $4,103.44. The insurance excess is $550.00. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $550.00.

The landlord has been substantially successful and the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord.

The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936894 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936894 — Property damage

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