What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941474 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $380.00 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4941474?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941474?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941474 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $380.00 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4941474?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941474?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4941474 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941474 — net $380.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$380.00
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$380.00

Order

[The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $380.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $380.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,300.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage and cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 July 2024. The landlord’s agent has applied for rent arrears of $10.00. However, at the hearing, the landlord’s agent confirmed he did not wish to pursue the claim.
The application for rent arrears is dismissed.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord’s agent produced Watercare invoices for the period 12 July 2023 to 10 June 2024. Those invoices were all labelled as “estimate” readings as opposed to “actual” readings. The tenants paid the (estimated) consumption water charges each month, following receipt of an invoice by the property management company.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord’s agent took a water reading. As a result of that reading, the landlord’s agent seeks $1,427.06 in water rates on the basis he says the actual water consumption was higher than the estimated water consumption, as charged for by Watercare throughout the tenancy.
The invoice which the property management company created records a meter reading on 10 June 2024 and a subsequent meter reading on 3 July 2024. No meter reading is provided for the start of the tenancy. The invoice which the property management company created suggests that, between the two readings, which is only a matter of three or four weeks, the tenants used a significant amount of water.
The landlord did not produce an invoice from Watercare to show the landlord had been charged $1,427.06 for actual water consumption for the period stated in the property management company invoice, nor for the whole of the tenancy.
The tenant denies liability for the additional water rates and says the water rates have been unfairly calculated. They say they paid the water rates each month following receipt of an invoice from the landlord’s agent, and it is unfair for the landlord to now seek such a large payment. They say that is particularly so when the tenancy agreement, which provides a space to record the water reading at the start of the tenancy, does not record the water reading at the start of the tenancy. The tenant therefore says he can not be sure what the water reading was at the start of the tenancy, and therefore how much was actually consumed during the tenancy.
I accept the tenant’s submissions. There is no meter reading for the start of the tenancy therefore I am not satisfied that the water consumption claimed by the landlord was actually consumed by the tenants during the tenancy.
The application for water rates is dismissed.

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. (a) Cleaning
The landlord’s agent sought $230.00 for the costs of cleaning the premises.
At the hearing, the tenant accepted liability for the costs of cleaning.
The amount ordered for cleaning is proved. (b) Rubbish removal
The landlord’s agent sought $150.00 for the costs of removing items left by the tenant in the sleepout. The landlord referred to photographs taken inside the sleepout/granny flat on 5 July 2024 which showed a black bed frame, ironing board, rolls of carpet underlay and a wardrobe frame. The landlord produced an invoice (the same invoice as was provided for cleaning) which included an itemised charge of $150.00 for rubbish removal.
The tenant accepted the items in the sleepout belonged to the tenants and were left behind at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said it was too late in the day to remove them. The tenant also referred to gym equipment being in the sleepout at the start of the tenancy which the tenants had to remove.
In response, the landlord’s agent said he gave the tenants two extra days after the end of the tenancy to remove the items but they were still there when he conducted a final inspection on 5 July 2024.
I am satisfied the items evidenced by photographs can be described as rubbish and were left behind by the tenants. The tenant accepts they were their belongings. No evidence was produced by the tenant in support of the claim for gym equipment removed, and no application was made in respect of that cost.
The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proved. (c) Lawn mowing
The landlord’s agent sought $210.00 for the costs of lawn mowing and weed removal. The landlord produced an invoice (the same invoice as was provided for cleaning and rubbish removal) which included an itemised charge of $210.00 for lawnmowing. The landlord referred to photographs taken outside on 5 July 2024 which he said showed: a. Overgrown weeds in planter boxes beside the deck; b. Grass clippings piled behind the sleepout; c. Overgrown weeds on the concrete area beside the shed.
The photographs taken before the tenancy (30 May 2023) show the same planter boxes beside the deck. Those photos appear to show the planter boxes had weeds in them at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to say what plants were planted in the planter boxes. The tenant said the weeds were already there at the start of the tenancy and he otherwise kept the outside of the premises tidy. I am not satisfied the weeds in the planter boxes were not reasonably tidy taking into account the condition they were in at the start of the tenancy.
As regards the grass clippings behind the sleepout, the landlord’s agent did not produce photographs to show the condition that area was in prior to the start of the tenancy. I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has proven the area was not reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The weeding on the concrete area beside the shed is not significant and does not result in the tenant failing to keep the outside area reasonably tidy.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for lawn mowing and/or weed removal.

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 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’s agent sought $300.00 to repair two broken windows. The landlord produced an invoice (the same invoice as above) which included an itemised charge of $300.00 for window repairs. The landlord referred to photographs which showed a small (approximately 3 – 5 cm) hole in one window in a bedroom, and a crack in one pane of the French door’s windows in the dining room. The photographs were taken on the final inspection on 5 July 2024.
The tenant says when they left the property on 3 July 2024, being the last day of the tenancy, the windows were not broken. The tenants noted the property manager did not point the broken windows out on that day. They say no windows were broken throughout the tenancy.
In reply, the landlord’s agent said he did not notice either broken windows on 3 July 2024. He only noticed them when he did a more thorough inspection on 5 July 2024.
I am not satisfied the landlord’s agent has proven the windows were broken by the tenants, or someone they permitted on the property, during the tenancy. It remains possible that someone entered the property between 3 and 5 July 2024 and caused the damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for repair of the two broken and cracked windows.

Should the tenant or landlord reimburse the other for the filing fee?

The landlord was partially successful in its claim. The tenants were also partially successful in their claim.
As a result, neither party is ordered to reimburse the other for the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941474 — net $380.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$380.00
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$380.00

Order

[The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $380.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $380.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,300.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage and cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 July 2024. The landlord’s agent has applied for rent arrears of $10.00. However, at the hearing, the landlord’s agent confirmed he did not wish to pursue the claim.
The application for rent arrears is dismissed.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord’s agent produced Watercare invoices for the period 12 July 2023 to 10 June 2024. Those invoices were all labelled as “estimate” readings as opposed to “actual” readings. The tenants paid the (estimated) consumption water charges each month, following receipt of an invoice by the property management company.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord’s agent took a water reading. As a result of that reading, the landlord’s agent seeks $1,427.06 in water rates on the basis he says the actual water consumption was higher than the estimated water consumption, as charged for by Watercare throughout the tenancy.
The invoice which the property management company created records a meter reading on 10 June 2024 and a subsequent meter reading on 3 July 2024. No meter reading is provided for the start of the tenancy. The invoice which the property management company created suggests that, between the two readings, which is only a matter of three or four weeks, the tenants used a significant amount of water.
The landlord did not produce an invoice from Watercare to show the landlord had been charged $1,427.06 for actual water consumption for the period stated in the property management company invoice, nor for the whole of the tenancy.
The tenant denies liability for the additional water rates and says the water rates have been unfairly calculated. They say they paid the water rates each month following receipt of an invoice from the landlord’s agent, and it is unfair for the landlord to now seek such a large payment. They say that is particularly so when the tenancy agreement, which provides a space to record the water reading at the start of the tenancy, does not record the water reading at the start of the tenancy. The tenant therefore says he can not be sure what the water reading was at the start of the tenancy, and therefore how much was actually consumed during the tenancy.
I accept the tenant’s submissions. There is no meter reading for the start of the tenancy therefore I am not satisfied that the water consumption claimed by the landlord was actually consumed by the tenants during the tenancy.
The application for water rates is dismissed.

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. (a) Cleaning
The landlord’s agent sought $230.00 for the costs of cleaning the premises.
At the hearing, the tenant accepted liability for the costs of cleaning.
The amount ordered for cleaning is proved. (b) Rubbish removal
The landlord’s agent sought $150.00 for the costs of removing items left by the tenant in the sleepout. The landlord referred to photographs taken inside the sleepout/granny flat on 5 July 2024 which showed a black bed frame, ironing board, rolls of carpet underlay and a wardrobe frame. The landlord produced an invoice (the same invoice as was provided for cleaning) which included an itemised charge of $150.00 for rubbish removal.
The tenant accepted the items in the sleepout belonged to the tenants and were left behind at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said it was too late in the day to remove them. The tenant also referred to gym equipment being in the sleepout at the start of the tenancy which the tenants had to remove.
In response, the landlord’s agent said he gave the tenants two extra days after the end of the tenancy to remove the items but they were still there when he conducted a final inspection on 5 July 2024.
I am satisfied the items evidenced by photographs can be described as rubbish and were left behind by the tenants. The tenant accepts they were their belongings. No evidence was produced by the tenant in support of the claim for gym equipment removed, and no application was made in respect of that cost.
The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proved. (c) Lawn mowing
The landlord’s agent sought $210.00 for the costs of lawn mowing and weed removal. The landlord produced an invoice (the same invoice as was provided for cleaning and rubbish removal) which included an itemised charge of $210.00 for lawnmowing. The landlord referred to photographs taken outside on 5 July 2024 which he said showed: a. Overgrown weeds in planter boxes beside the deck; b. Grass clippings piled behind the sleepout; c. Overgrown weeds on the concrete area beside the shed.
The photographs taken before the tenancy (30 May 2023) show the same planter boxes beside the deck. Those photos appear to show the planter boxes had weeds in them at the start of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to say what plants were planted in the planter boxes. The tenant said the weeds were already there at the start of the tenancy and he otherwise kept the outside of the premises tidy. I am not satisfied the weeds in the planter boxes were not reasonably tidy taking into account the condition they were in at the start of the tenancy.
As regards the grass clippings behind the sleepout, the landlord’s agent did not produce photographs to show the condition that area was in prior to the start of the tenancy. I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has proven the area was not reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The weeding on the concrete area beside the shed is not significant and does not result in the tenant failing to keep the outside area reasonably tidy.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for lawn mowing and/or weed removal.

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 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’s agent sought $300.00 to repair two broken windows. The landlord produced an invoice (the same invoice as above) which included an itemised charge of $300.00 for window repairs. The landlord referred to photographs which showed a small (approximately 3 – 5 cm) hole in one window in a bedroom, and a crack in one pane of the French door’s windows in the dining room. The photographs were taken on the final inspection on 5 July 2024.
The tenant says when they left the property on 3 July 2024, being the last day of the tenancy, the windows were not broken. The tenants noted the property manager did not point the broken windows out on that day. They say no windows were broken throughout the tenancy.
In reply, the landlord’s agent said he did not notice either broken windows on 3 July 2024. He only noticed them when he did a more thorough inspection on 5 July 2024.
I am not satisfied the landlord’s agent has proven the windows were broken by the tenants, or someone they permitted on the property, during the tenancy. It remains possible that someone entered the property between 3 and 5 July 2024 and caused the damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for repair of the two broken and cracked windows.

Should the tenant or landlord reimburse the other for the filing fee?

The landlord was partially successful in its claim. The tenants were also partially successful in their claim.
As a result, neither party is ordered to reimburse the other for the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941474 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941474 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant or landlord reimburse the other for the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant or landlord reimburse the other for the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions