What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4937193 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4937193?

Cleaning: $615.25 awarded to landlord; Empty Rubbish Bin: $53.47 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $181.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $498.81 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937193?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11148513-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4937193 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4937193?

Cleaning: $615.25 awarded to landlord; Empty Rubbish Bin: $53.47 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $181.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $498.81 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $630.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937193?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11148513-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4937193 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4937193. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.6.2024	$630.00	Rent arrears to 16.6.2024
Carpet patch repair at front door area	$498.81	Carpet patch repair at front door area
Cleaning	$615.25	Cleaning
Garden work	$181.12	Garden work
Empty rubbish bin	$53.47	Empty rubbish bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4937193. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.6.2024	$630.00	Rent arrears to 16.6.2024
Carpet patch repair at front door area	$498.81	Carpet patch repair at front door area
Cleaning	$615.25	Cleaning
Garden work	$181.12	Garden work
Empty rubbish bin	$53.47	Empty rubbish bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s], $285.65, immediately calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, [The tenant/s], all attended the teleconference hearing.
The parties confirmed that [Tenant 1] left the tenancy in January 2023, as the tenants, who had been in a relationship, separated. [Tenant 1] said he did not sign any papers about leaving the tenancy, nor did he ask for a partial refund of the bond, given the tenants’ separation and other issues at the time. [Tenant 2] agreed that [Tenant 1] left the tenancy in January 2023 and that she took sole responsibility for payment of any rent arrears owing by the tenant. [Tenant 1] said he was attending the hearing as he had an interest in the bond still.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed that [Tenant 2] ended the tenancy ended on 16 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing in rent to 16 June 2024, the end of the tenancy, is $630.00. This was not disputed.
The tenant said they had understood part of the rent they paid was to go towards any damage caused by their pets. The landlord disputed this. As such, I must determine this issue next. Did the parties agree that any portion of the rent was to cover any damage by the tenant’s pets?
The tenants’ evidence was that the property was being advertised for rent before the tenancy began at $410.00/week. They said the landlord asked if they would pay an extra $20.00/week, which they understood was $5.00 per week, per pet (they had 4 pets), to get the property, to which they agreed. Over the course of the tenancy, the tenant said they paid the extra $20.00/week and, whilst they understood that this arrangement pre-dated pet bonds that are available currently, they believed the ‘extra’ rent they paid for their pets was understood to cover any damage caused by the pets during the tenancy.
The landlord agreed that the tenants paid an extra $20.00 per week for their dogs but said this was not agreed to cover any damages or cleaning due to the tenant’s pets.
The Tenancy Agreement, which was signed by the parties, said the tenant was permitted to keep 4 named pets on the property – 2 dogs and 2 cats, whose names and breeds were provided. The Tenancy Agreement, under the section ‘Allowed Pets’ goes on to say, “The tenants also agree to take necessary steps to ensure that the carpets are clean and free from potential infestation at the conclusion of the tenancy.” There was no discussion in the Tenancy Agreement about any ‘pet bond’ or whether any of the rent was to cover any potential damage from the tenants’ pets, just that weekly rent at the start of the tenancy was $430.00.
One of the essential elements of a contract is agreement between the parties as to the terms of the contract. The parties here each dispute having agreed that any extra rent paid by the tenant for pets was to cover any damages or cleaning related to the pets during the tenancy. The Tenancy Agreement stated that the tenants agreed to take necessary steps to ensure the carpets were clean and free from potential infestation at the conclusion of the tenancy, and inferred this was to be at the tenant’s cost. The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence of their understanding that the landlord had agreed that any extra rent they paid was to cover their pets’ damages and cleaning, such as written confirmation of this via emails, texts or other written statements or documents to this effect.
In the absence of any additional supporting evidence from the tenant to this effect, I find there is insufficient evidence to show that the parties agreed that any of the rent paid by the tenant was to cover any pet damage or pet cleaning. Therefore, the tenants would be liable for the costs of any claims as found by the Tribunal.

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”). 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. There was some evidence provided about the cost of light bulbs but, at the hearing, the landlord did not pursue any claim to replace lightbulbs.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. 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 reported that there was fur on the carpet, grime on the walls and skirting boards, marks on the wall and the light shades were dirty. Further, the landlord pointed to dog slobber marks on the windows and French doors and said the windows and French doors then had to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an Ingoing Inspection report dated 25 November 2020 and an Outgoing Inspection report dated 21 June 2024. The property manager pointed to several photographs in each inspection report, which she said justified the cleaning cost claimed, which was $755.00. The landlord provided an invoice dated 11 July 2024, with a narrative of the cleaning work done, from the cleaners.
[Tenant 2] agreed she had not left the house completely clean. She accepted the cost claimed by the landlord for cleaning the kitchen, oven, bathroom and windows. The total cleaning cost claimed for these areas is $335.00 plus GST, for a sub-total of $385.25. She disputed the cleaning cost claimed for marks on the walls, for light fittings and the cleaning of the carpet, which cover the remainder of the cost of the cleaning invoice claimed, which would be $369.75.
The dog slobber marks on the wall, the fur grime on the skirting boards and the pet odour that the landlord wanted removed with a carpet clean at the end of the tenant, according to [Tenant 2], were issues that arose from her pets. This is why she disputed having the pay the cleaning costs claimed by the landlord for these issues, as she believed she paid extra rent for this purpose. [Tenant 2] did not dispute the requirement for cleaning due to these issues with her pets. However, I have dealt with this issue of whether any rent was paid to cover such pet damage above and have found there to be insufficient evidence of such an agreement. The Tenancy Agreement specifies that the tenant agrees to take necessary steps to ensure the carpets are clean and free from potential infestation at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants acknowledged there may have been mold along some windowsills at the end of the tenancy but explained this was because the property was a damp place. They said they had had consistent issues with mold during the tenancy, understood the windowsills and curtains were stained from mold and that the bathroom ceiling had been covered in mold during their tenancy and the landlord had repainted it.
The tenant believed they cleaned the property to a tenant standard of what was reasonably clean and tidy and that cleaning items such as light fittings, windows and cleaning carpets, were the landlord’s obligations as they went beyond what was reasonably clean and tidy.
In reviewing the photographs of the Outgoing Inspection report, I find that, mostly, the property was left reasonably clean and tidy, with some exceptions. I accept that the kitchen and bathroom required cleaning, the oven needed to be cleaned and that the windows needed cleaning that was beyond what would usually be required, due to the pet slobber. I further accept that the marks on the walls, from the dog, would also require cleaning and the carpet would need to be deodorised after a tenancy with pets.
I do not, however, find the cost of cleaning light fittings, was the tenant’s responsibility here, given the evidence, as in this case it was beyond the tenant standard of reasonably clean and tidy.
I find the cost attributable to cleaning the kitchen, oven, bathroom and windows would be $385.25 (GST inclusive), as acknowledged by the tenant. I find a reasonable additional cost attributable to the pets, which is marks on the wall, and deodorising the carpet, would be $200.00 plus GST for a sub-total of $230.00. Therefore, I award a total of $615.25 for cleaning to the landlord. Gardening
The landlord claimed $210.02 for a garden tidy, which included weeding and mowing the lawns and taking garden rubbish to the dump. They did not claim gardener time for cutting trees and the other portion of the garden waste dump fees.
[Tenant 2] said the weeds that were claimed for weeding were ivy, which she had requested be removed by the landlord, and that the lawns had last been mowed by her when she left the property and then would have been mowed by the landlord only a week later, which she felt was excessive. [Tenant 1] agreed that the lawns had been mowed, as he had been present at the time, he acknowledged there was some weeding to be done outside the ivy and that some dump fees would be required. He thought it would be reasonable for the landlord to claim around 2.5 hours of weeding and some of the dump fee for around $120.00 to $180.00 perhaps in the circumstances.
The landlord countered that the weeding was not ivy and required significant gardening time. The landlord provided before and after pictures of the exterior of the property. The photographs do not particularly highlight a lawn that required mowing but the ‘after’ photographs of the exterior of the property were substantially tidier after being weeded, in my view. The gardener’s hourly rate was $52.50/hour exclusive of GST. I find that 3 hours @ $52.50/hour, coming to $157.50, plus GST for a sub-total of $181.12, is reasonable costs to weed the exterior of the garden and dump the garden waste at the end of the tenancy and award this to the landlord. I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show the lawns needed to be mowed at the end of the tenancy and so have not allowed for this cost. Empty rubbish bins
The landlord claimed $53.47 to empty rubbish bins and for dump fees for rubbish left outside in the bins at the property. The property manager said the bins were not put out for the Council to collect as the new tenant was moving in that same week, that the yellow Council bin had been put out, but the red Council bin needed to be emptied and dumped.
The tenant disputed the rubbish claim and said she thought she should be able to use a Council organised rubbish collection when she paid rent at the property. She said she returned to put the bin out and thought the red Council bin had maybe been about ¼ full when she left. [Tenant 1] did not believe the cost claimed by the landlord was reasonable to dump such a minuscule amount of rubbish as ¼ of the red bin.
The landlord said the tenant’s obligation to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy included the outside bins.
I find the landlord’s claim to have the small remaining amount of rubbish in the red bin removed before the next tenant moved into the property to be reasonable, as the tenants are obligated to empty all rubbish bins at the end of the tenancy, as part of leaving the property reasonably clean and tidy. As such, I award the landlord $53.47 for the time involved and dump fees for this rubbish, which I find to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. Flea treatments
The landlord further claimed the cost of flea treatments at the property, in the amount of $392.44. The property manager said they were not aware of any fleas at the start of the next tenancy after these tenants moved out. However, about 6 days into the next tenancy, the new tenant said they had flea bites. The landlord attributed this to these tenants’ pets.
The tenants strenuously disputed that their pets had fleas. [Tenant 2] said she was fastidious about treating her pets regularly for any fleas and checked them consistently. This was supported by [Tenant 1].
In the absence of any additional supporting evidence, I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove it was these tenants that introduced fleas to the property. Therefore, I dismiss this claim.
The landlord, in their application evidence provided before the hearing said they had to replace light bulbs at the end of the tenancy. However, this claim was not pursued by the landlord during the hearing.
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: Carpet patch by front door a. The carpet by the front door was damaged, requiring carpet patching to repair the area. The landlord said there was no new carpet put into this area, only that the damaged areas were repaired with carpet patches. The landlord provided photographs of the damage. b. The tenant acknowledged her dog had chewed the carpet by the front door and so agreed this damage had been caused during the tenancy. I find the damage caused by the tenant’s dog to the front door carpet area was careless damage on the part of the tenant, given the evidence. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. c. Given the landlord patched the carpet rather than replaced it, I find the landlord has not gained a new asset, i.e. a new carpet, to which depreciation should be applied, but rather the landlord has incurred a repair cost to repair the damaged area only on the carpet with patches. d. Therefore, the tenant is liable to the amount of the insurance excess here, which is $1,300.00 as outlined in the Tenancy Agreement, as this is less than the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent. e. As the landlord’s claim of $498.81 is less than the insurance excess, I award the landlord $498.81 to patch the carpet by the front door. Curtains f. Some curtains had to be replaced as they were marked, stained and damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claimed $97.50 plus GST, for a total of $112.12 to install the new curtains only. The landlord provided several photographs of the backs and bottoms of curtains, where the curtains had faced the windows in the property. Whilst the photographs were somewhat unclear, some mould was visible on the bottoms of some of these curtains on the side of the curtains facing the windows. However, I find that the curtains could likely have been washed, rather than replaced, thus potentially mitigating the landlord’s cost of replacing them. I find the landlord has not mitigated their loss here and, given there was no evidence provided by the landlord as to a cost for cleaning the curtains, dismiss this claim. Door handle for shed g. The door handle for the shed was missing and had to be replaced. The landlord claimed $209.57 plus GST to replace and install the door handle on the shed. The landlord provided photographs of the shed’s door handle at the start and at the end of the tenancy. h. The tenant said the shed’s door handle had been problematic during the tenancy and that they had placed this door handle inside the shed and had used an alternative means of getting into the shed during their tenancy. i. I note the photographs of the shed at the end of the tenancy show a gold doorknob on the shed door, which the tenant confirmed is the gold doorknob belonging to the shed. As such, I find the landlord has not proved their claim that this doorknob is missing, and I dismiss this claim.
The damage I have found proved above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond refund
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
The landlord has been successful with the claim and so is entitled to be reimbursed for the filing fee. Suppression
All parties requested name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
One of the original tenants left the tenancy in January 2023, as acknowledged by all parties, but attended the hearing to address the issues that related to the bond refund, in which he still has an interest. The other tenant, with whom the first tenant has a child, acknowledged the issues that she felt were attributable to her, and appeared to have made some efforts to clean the property before leaving, though the standard to which it was left was disputed. The latter has a new tenancy, which she said is going well. Both tenants have a young child. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the tenants’ interests in not publishing their names outweigh the public interest in doing so. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4937193 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4937193 — Rent arrears

At a glance

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

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