What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959893 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 4959893?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $64.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $497.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11174428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959893 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 4959893?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $64.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $497.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11174428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959893 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959893 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959893 — net $923.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean	$497.93	Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean
Additional cleaning - landlord labour	$180.00	Additional cleaning - landlord labour
Cleaning materials	$64.00	Cleaning materials
Lock/key replacement	$60.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement curtains	$95.00	Replacement curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$923.93
Bond	$2,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$923.93

Claims and awards for application 4959893 — net $923.93 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean

Amount: $497.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean

Additional cleaning - landlord labour

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Additional cleaning - landlord labour

Cleaning materials

Amount: $64.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning materials

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replacement curtains

Amount: $95.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement curtains

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $923.93 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $923.93 [The tenant/s]: $1,916.07

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two out of three tenants came to the hearing.
One tenant gave notice pursuant to section 56B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Her name has been removed from the application because her liability ended when she moved out, on 8 August 2024.
The tenancy then terminated on 7 September 2024 after another tenant gave 28 days notice. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. He wants orders to be made against one tenant only, but that is not possible. The two tenants who remained in the tenancy are jointly and severally liable for any damage and any clean up at the end of the tenancy. I have advised that any dispute between tenants can be decided in another jurisdiction.
The bond covers the whole tenancy and should be used to compensate the landlord.
The tenants said they came to the hearing to be witnesses for the landlord. Once I understood how the tenancy ended it was better for the tenants to defend the claims against them.
Because the tenancy has ended I am not required to consider whether there was anti-social behaviour or harassment during the tenancy.

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

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) RTA.
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 took photos at the end of the tenancy. The house was not left in a reasonable condition. One of the tenants was breeding rats and the landlord’s submission is that there were rat faeces on windowsills, on the floors and on the carpets. The amount claimed for cleaning and for cleaning products is proved and allowed.
One of the tenants did to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The claim for a replacement lock and for some landlord labour is allowed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
A curtain had a hole in it at the end of the tenancy. The landlord thought it had been chewed by a rat. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The claim was for two sets of curtains, but I have only allowed for one set. This is because it is reasonable to have matching curtains on a window, but it is not reasonable for the tenants to pay to replace a perfectly good set of curtains on a second window. The amount ordered is proved.

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages?

The landlord claimed exemplary damages because one of the tenants denied access to her bedroom even though the landlord gave 48 hours notice of an inspection. Not allowing the landlord access is a breach for which exemplary damages can be ordered. Exemplary damages are like a penalty. I am not persuaded I should allow exemplary damages here. Only one of the tenants refused entry. This happened once after the landlord gave notice of an inspection. The refusal was for one room in the house. Further, the landlord only wants me to make an order penalising one of the tenants, which is not possible because of their joint and several liability. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord submitted that one of the tenants breached her obligations under section 40 and 41 RTA. Compensation has been ordered for those breaches. I cannot order exemplary damages for breach of the duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for damage to a curtain. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
The bond will be refunded to pay the landlord. The remaining bond will be refunded to the three tenants.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
All names and identifying information are supressed pursuant to section 95A(1A) RTA which states the Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959893 — net $923.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean	$497.93	Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean
Additional cleaning - landlord labour	$180.00	Additional cleaning - landlord labour
Cleaning materials	$64.00	Cleaning materials
Lock/key replacement	$60.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement curtains	$95.00	Replacement curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$923.93
Bond	$2,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$923.93

Claims and awards for application 4959893 — net $923.93 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean

Amount: $497.93
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: professional cleaning including the carpet clean

Additional cleaning - landlord labour

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Additional cleaning - landlord labour

Cleaning materials

Amount: $64.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning materials

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $60.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replacement curtains

Amount: $95.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement curtains

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $923.93 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $923.93 [The tenant/s]: $1,916.07

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two out of three tenants came to the hearing.
One tenant gave notice pursuant to section 56B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Her name has been removed from the application because her liability ended when she moved out, on 8 August 2024.
The tenancy then terminated on 7 September 2024 after another tenant gave 28 days notice. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. He wants orders to be made against one tenant only, but that is not possible. The two tenants who remained in the tenancy are jointly and severally liable for any damage and any clean up at the end of the tenancy. I have advised that any dispute between tenants can be decided in another jurisdiction.
The bond covers the whole tenancy and should be used to compensate the landlord.
The tenants said they came to the hearing to be witnesses for the landlord. Once I understood how the tenancy ended it was better for the tenants to defend the claims against them.
Because the tenancy has ended I am not required to consider whether there was anti-social behaviour or harassment during the tenancy.

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

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) RTA.
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 took photos at the end of the tenancy. The house was not left in a reasonable condition. One of the tenants was breeding rats and the landlord’s submission is that there were rat faeces on windowsills, on the floors and on the carpets. The amount claimed for cleaning and for cleaning products is proved and allowed.
One of the tenants did to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The claim for a replacement lock and for some landlord labour is allowed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
A curtain had a hole in it at the end of the tenancy. The landlord thought it had been chewed by a rat. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The claim was for two sets of curtains, but I have only allowed for one set. This is because it is reasonable to have matching curtains on a window, but it is not reasonable for the tenants to pay to replace a perfectly good set of curtains on a second window. The amount ordered is proved.

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages?

The landlord claimed exemplary damages because one of the tenants denied access to her bedroom even though the landlord gave 48 hours notice of an inspection. Not allowing the landlord access is a breach for which exemplary damages can be ordered. Exemplary damages are like a penalty. I am not persuaded I should allow exemplary damages here. Only one of the tenants refused entry. This happened once after the landlord gave notice of an inspection. The refusal was for one room in the house. Further, the landlord only wants me to make an order penalising one of the tenants, which is not possible because of their joint and several liability. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord submitted that one of the tenants breached her obligations under section 40 and 41 RTA. Compensation has been ordered for those breaches. I cannot order exemplary damages for breach of the duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for damage to a curtain. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
The bond will be refunded to pay the landlord. The remaining bond will be refunded to the three tenants.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
All names and identifying information are supressed pursuant to section 95A(1A) RTA which states the Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959893 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959893 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions