What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955078 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Oxygen Property Management Limited $58.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4955078?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Net Curtain Rehanging: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955078?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11055253-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955078 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Oxygen Property Management Limited $58.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4955078?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Net Curtain Rehanging: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955078?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11055253-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955078 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955078 — net $58.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Part	$60.00		Cleaning: Part
Repairs: Net curtain rehanging	$25.00		Repairs: Net curtain rehanging
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$85.00	$27.00
Net award	$58.00
Bond	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$58.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and a net curtain via a refund of the bond.

The tenant has requested the balance of the bond retained is returned.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

The rent credit in favour of the tenant has already been paid. The landlord claim regarding sink plugs was withdrawn.

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

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA 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 claimed the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An invoice for $200.00 was provided. The cleaning task was instigated by the owner rather than the agent. The tasks completed via the invoice were:

The landlord provided some photos in support. These were localised and typically in areas that might easily be missed in a final clean. I have considered the tasks and cost claimed against the supporting evidence. On that basis, I have determined $60.00 of that invoiced cost should be awarded against the tenant for some follow up cleaning.

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.

The landlord (owner) incurred a cost of $108.00 in replacing a net curtain. The tenant acknowledged a rip had occurred. This was discussed with the property manager at the time and a replacement sought. Later, the owner preferred to replace the net curtain to match others in that room. The tenant’s helper had mistakenly hung the replacement curtain upside down.

The net curtains were over 2.5 years old.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation with regards to this claim. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not ripped the net curtain, and should not be better or worse off. In allowing for depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

In this claim, I have determined an award of $25.00 should be made. That was arrived at by firstly, allowing for the retention of the replacement net curtain, albeit needing rehanging. The second validation of the sum was consideration of a reasonable replacement cost, after depreciation. The life expectancy of net curtains is not great and I have some mind to possible deterioration that lead to the rip occurring. A depreciated amount would align with the award. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I leave the landlord with its cost of filing. I consider this dispute could have been resolved without recourse to the Tribunal by a more considered approach by the landlord. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, 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.

The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered. Regardless, given the circumstances I would have exercised my own initiative to order the same.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955078 — net $58.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Part	$60.00		Cleaning: Part
Repairs: Net curtain rehanging	$25.00		Repairs: Net curtain rehanging
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$85.00	$27.00
Net award	$58.00
Bond	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$58.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and a net curtain via a refund of the bond.

The tenant has requested the balance of the bond retained is returned.

The rent credit in favour of the tenant has already been paid. The landlord claim regarding sink plugs was withdrawn.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The net curtains were over 2.5 years old.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I leave the landlord with its cost of filing. I consider this dispute could have been resolved without recourse to the Tribunal by a more considered approach by the landlord. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955078 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955078 — Cleanliness

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