What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4956374 about?

The tribunal order states: Mary Helen Fisher must pay [The tenant/s] $297.69 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4956374?

Previous Order Application 4804340 D…: $620.44 awarded to tenant; To Garage Door And New Lock: $272.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956374?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11019159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4956374 about?

The tribunal order states: Mary Helen Fisher must pay [The tenant/s] $297.69 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4956374?

Previous Order Application 4804340 D…: $620.44 awarded to tenant; To Garage Door And New Lock: $272.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956374?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11019159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4956374 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956374 — net $297.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: to garage door and new lock	$272.75		Repairs: to garage door and new lock
Rubbish removal: - furniture left outside	$50.00		Rubbish removal: - furniture left outside
Previous order application 4804340 dated 07/08/2024		$620.44	Previous order application 4804340 dated 07/08/2024
Total award	$322.75	$620.44
Net award		$297.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$297.69

Order

Mary Helen Fisher must pay [The tenant/s] $297.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the monetary order made in the Tribunal order dated 7 August 2024 under application 4804340.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This application is the landlord’s cross application, which was filed too late for me to consider in August. See [2024] NZTT 4804340, 4956374.
The bond was refunded to the tenants after their application was decided on 7 August 2024. I also made a monetary order in favour of the tenants. The amount is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The other orders and the reasons are not affected by this decision.

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

The landlord submitted that the tenants did not comply with a 14 day notice she gave them after the end of the tenancy. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide disputes that relate to the tenancy. This tenancy had ended so I find the 14 day notice was of no effect. This claim is dismissed.
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. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii)
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 landlord has claimed the tenants did not remove their rubbish. She has not taken any photos of the rubbish. The tenants said they removed all their rubbish. The landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed $50 to remove two items of furniture left outside the tenancy premises after the end of the tenancy. I have been provided with photos. This is a reasonable claim because the tenants should have completely moved out by 11.59 pm on 5 February 2024. The amount claimed is reasonable.

Are the tenants 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.
There is a claim for damaged grass. Both parties provided photos showing the grass was very brown and had bare patches. The tenants sowed grass seed before they left but this did not take. There is an email from the landlord sent at the time which acknowledged the drought and poor growing conditions. I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage here. It seems most likely to me there was fair wear and tear on the grass during summer. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing a damaged lampshade. I have been provided with a photo. The lampshade is still attached to the ceiling and I cannot see sufficient damage to warrant replacement. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing the garage door lock because a key was lost and for repairing one of the arms. The landlord provided an invoice supporting the claim and some photos. The tenants’ submissions differed because one said any damage was fair wear and tear and the other said the door was in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it was when they moved in. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and this claim is proved. It seems most likely to me the door was damaged during the tenancy. Replacing a lock because of a lost key is reasonable because the landlord has a duty to provide secure premises.
There is a claim for repairing damage to a bathroom wall. The photos show some wallpaper has been scraped but I have no idea how big the scrape is because the photos do not provide any context. The tenants said there were plenty of small marks on the walls which were the result of wear and tear, not damage. I do not find the landlord has proved the claim.
There is a claim for a missing window security latch. There is no evidence this has been replaced. I find the landlord has not proved a loss and this claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $50 for the loss of value of the carpet in one of the bedrooms. The landlord provided me with a photo showing a dark mark on the carpet. The tenants provided a photo showing a mark in the same bedroom at the start of the tenancy. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence and this claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for rehanging the heavy drapes. The landlord’s photo taken at the end of the tenancy shows some of the hooks were missing. I find the missing curtain hooks to be fair wear and tear and not damage. This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants harass the landlord in her capacity as a neighbour?

The landlord has claimed $3000 in compensation because of abuse, threats and harassment. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord submitted that one of the tenants came back to the house late on the last day of the tenancy and abused her, swore at her, harassed her, and made threats of violence. She said she was scared and locked herself inside the house. She did not call the police. The tenant replied that he still had belongings at the house, there was a heated discussion about the bond, and he said something about the landlord “extorting tenants”. He said he was frustrated but he did not threaten the landlord.
I find this incident happened during the tenancy, at the tenancy premises, and occurred because the landlord and tenant had a disagreement in the last hours of the tenancy. I do not find this was a tenant breaching the quiet enjoyment of a neighbour as intended by section 40(2) RTA. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for the filing fee because the landlord has not substantially succeeded with her claim.
Both parties made an application for suppression. 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. See section 95A RTA.
When I consider the two applications I find the tenants are the most successful party. Their application for suppression is allowed. The landlord’s application is not allowed because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.
This order incorporates the monetary order made in the Tribunal order dated 7 August 2024 under application 4804340. The total amount the landlord must pay the tenants is $297.69.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956374 — net $297.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: to garage door and new lock	$272.75		Repairs: to garage door and new lock
Rubbish removal: - furniture left outside	$50.00		Rubbish removal: - furniture left outside
Previous order application 4804340 dated 07/08/2024		$620.44	Previous order application 4804340 dated 07/08/2024
Total award	$322.75	$620.44
Net award		$297.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$297.69

Order

Mary Helen Fisher must pay [The tenant/s] $297.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the monetary order made in the Tribunal order dated 7 August 2024 under application 4804340.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This application is the landlord’s cross application, which was filed too late for me to consider in August. See [2024] NZTT 4804340, 4956374.
The bond was refunded to the tenants after their application was decided on 7 August 2024. I also made a monetary order in favour of the tenants. The amount is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The other orders and the reasons are not affected by this decision.

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

The landlord submitted that the tenants did not comply with a 14 day notice she gave them after the end of the tenancy. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide disputes that relate to the tenancy. This tenancy had ended so I find the 14 day notice was of no effect. This claim is dismissed.
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. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii)
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 landlord has claimed the tenants did not remove their rubbish. She has not taken any photos of the rubbish. The tenants said they removed all their rubbish. The landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed $50 to remove two items of furniture left outside the tenancy premises after the end of the tenancy. I have been provided with photos. This is a reasonable claim because the tenants should have completely moved out by 11.59 pm on 5 February 2024. The amount claimed is reasonable.

Are the tenants 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.
There is a claim for damaged grass. Both parties provided photos showing the grass was very brown and had bare patches. The tenants sowed grass seed before they left but this did not take. There is an email from the landlord sent at the time which acknowledged the drought and poor growing conditions. I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage here. It seems most likely to me there was fair wear and tear on the grass during summer. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing a damaged lampshade. I have been provided with a photo. The lampshade is still attached to the ceiling and I cannot see sufficient damage to warrant replacement. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacing the garage door lock because a key was lost and for repairing one of the arms. The landlord provided an invoice supporting the claim and some photos. The tenants’ submissions differed because one said any damage was fair wear and tear and the other said the door was in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it was when they moved in. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and this claim is proved. It seems most likely to me the door was damaged during the tenancy. Replacing a lock because of a lost key is reasonable because the landlord has a duty to provide secure premises.
There is a claim for repairing damage to a bathroom wall. The photos show some wallpaper has been scraped but I have no idea how big the scrape is because the photos do not provide any context. The tenants said there were plenty of small marks on the walls which were the result of wear and tear, not damage. I do not find the landlord has proved the claim.
There is a claim for a missing window security latch. There is no evidence this has been replaced. I find the landlord has not proved a loss and this claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $50 for the loss of value of the carpet in one of the bedrooms. The landlord provided me with a photo showing a dark mark on the carpet. The tenants provided a photo showing a mark in the same bedroom at the start of the tenancy. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence and this claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for rehanging the heavy drapes. The landlord’s photo taken at the end of the tenancy shows some of the hooks were missing. I find the missing curtain hooks to be fair wear and tear and not damage. This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants harass the landlord in her capacity as a neighbour?

The landlord has claimed $3000 in compensation because of abuse, threats and harassment. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord submitted that one of the tenants came back to the house late on the last day of the tenancy and abused her, swore at her, harassed her, and made threats of violence. She said she was scared and locked herself inside the house. She did not call the police. The tenant replied that he still had belongings at the house, there was a heated discussion about the bond, and he said something about the landlord “extorting tenants”. He said he was frustrated but he did not threaten the landlord.
I find this incident happened during the tenancy, at the tenancy premises, and occurred because the landlord and tenant had a disagreement in the last hours of the tenancy. I do not find this was a tenant breaching the quiet enjoyment of a neighbour as intended by section 40(2) RTA. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for the filing fee because the landlord has not substantially succeeded with her claim.
Both parties made an application for suppression. 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. See section 95A RTA.
When I consider the two applications I find the tenants are the most successful party. Their application for suppression is allowed. The landlord’s application is not allowed because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.
This order incorporates the monetary order made in the Tribunal order dated 7 August 2024 under application 4804340. The total amount the landlord must pay the tenants is $297.69.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956374 — Property damage at 3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956374 — Property damage at 3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants harass the landlord in her capacity as a neighbour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants harass the landlord in her capacity as a neighbour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions