What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4951873 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 4951873?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Tray: $179.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,482.86 awarded to landlord; Painting: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4951873?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4951873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11285998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4951873 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 4951873?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Tray: $179.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,482.86 awarded to landlord; Painting: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4951873?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4951873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11285998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4951873 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4951873 — net $3,169.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,482.86	Rent arrears
Water rates	$75.63	Water rates
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Oven tray	$179.00	Oven tray
Repairs: Painting	$345.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,169.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,169.49

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sebastian Neugebauer and Anastasia Neugebauer must pay [The landlord/s] $3,169.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $7,482.86 for rent and $75.63 for water rates.
The Tribunal had previously ordered that this fixed term tenancy be amended to a periodic tenancy, requiring a minimum written notice period from the tenants of 6 weeks. To further compensate the tenants, the landlord gave the tenants a credit of $3,120.00 in reduction of the rent. The credit was calculated on the full term of the tenancy. When the early termination of the tenancy is factored in, the landlord is entitled to reimbursement of $522.86 from the credited sum and I have included that in the order.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenants 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 emphasis is mine).
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 provided an invoice for $276.00 and photos in support of the claim. The photos show premises which are generally reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord explained that the premises had been relet following this tenancy and that the cleaning carried out by the landlord was required to bring the premises to a standard where they could be relet. As noted above, that is not the standard required of the tenants at the end of a tenancy. The photos show some limited areas where further cleaning is required. I consider cleaning costs of $100.00 to be reasonable.
An oven tray was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accept having taken this in error. The claim for $179.00 is 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 excess on that policy of insurance is $2,750.00 on each and every claim.
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: A toilet seat cover hinge was cracked. The landlord says that the toilet was a “soft close” toilet. The landlord suggested that the cause of the damage was the seat cover being forced closed. The landlord provided an email from the supplier recording their refusal to accept a warranty claim as the seat was damaged “by hard impact”.
The tenant said that two toilets at the premises had cracked in exactly the same place. The burden of proof is initially on the landlord, to prove that the damage has not been caused by fair wear and tear. The tenant having raised a reasonable explanation of fair wear and tear for the damage, the claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenants have carried out some repairs to the wall in the living area of the first floor. The landlord says that the work carried out has not been carried out in a professional manner and that the paint used has resulted in a “patchy” finish.
The tenant says that they asked the landlord for the correct paint colour to carry out the repairs. They were provided with the paint type and colour by the landlord. The tenant obtained that paint and used it. It is not uncommon for different batches of the same paint to have a slightly different tint. In the circumstances as described, the paint has not been blended with the existing paint and this has resulted in a patched effect. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The invoice provided is for $345.00 which is reasonable.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in the hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed,

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4951873 — net $3,169.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,482.86	Rent arrears
Water rates	$75.63	Water rates
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Oven tray	$179.00	Oven tray
Repairs: Painting	$345.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,169.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,169.49

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sebastian Neugebauer and Anastasia Neugebauer must pay [The landlord/s] $3,169.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $7,482.86 for rent and $75.63 for water rates.
The Tribunal had previously ordered that this fixed term tenancy be amended to a periodic tenancy, requiring a minimum written notice period from the tenants of 6 weeks. To further compensate the tenants, the landlord gave the tenants a credit of $3,120.00 in reduction of the rent. The credit was calculated on the full term of the tenancy. When the early termination of the tenancy is factored in, the landlord is entitled to reimbursement of $522.86 from the credited sum and I have included that in the order.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenants 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 emphasis is mine).
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 provided an invoice for $276.00 and photos in support of the claim. The photos show premises which are generally reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord explained that the premises had been relet following this tenancy and that the cleaning carried out by the landlord was required to bring the premises to a standard where they could be relet. As noted above, that is not the standard required of the tenants at the end of a tenancy. The photos show some limited areas where further cleaning is required. I consider cleaning costs of $100.00 to be reasonable.
An oven tray was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accept having taken this in error. The claim for $179.00 is 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 excess on that policy of insurance is $2,750.00 on each and every claim.
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: A toilet seat cover hinge was cracked. The landlord says that the toilet was a “soft close” toilet. The landlord suggested that the cause of the damage was the seat cover being forced closed. The landlord provided an email from the supplier recording their refusal to accept a warranty claim as the seat was damaged “by hard impact”.
The tenant said that two toilets at the premises had cracked in exactly the same place. The burden of proof is initially on the landlord, to prove that the damage has not been caused by fair wear and tear. The tenant having raised a reasonable explanation of fair wear and tear for the damage, the claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenants have carried out some repairs to the wall in the living area of the first floor. The landlord says that the work carried out has not been carried out in a professional manner and that the paint used has resulted in a “patchy” finish.
The tenant says that they asked the landlord for the correct paint colour to carry out the repairs. They were provided with the paint type and colour by the landlord. The tenant obtained that paint and used it. It is not uncommon for different batches of the same paint to have a slightly different tint. In the circumstances as described, the paint has not been blended with the existing paint and this has resulted in a patched effect. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The invoice provided is for $345.00 which is reasonable.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in the hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed,

Tenancy Tribunal case 4951873 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4951873 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants 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 and water rates?

Did the tenants 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