How much money was awarded in case 4964342?

Cleaning: $305.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install New Curtains: $467.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964342?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11305481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4964342?

Cleaning: $305.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install New Curtains: $467.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964342?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11305481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964342 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4964342 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4964342 — net $225.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace and install new curtains	$467.34	Replace and install new curtains
Repairs: bedroom wall damage	$345.00	Repairs: bedroom wall damage
Carpet Cleaning: steam clean and deodorise	$305.90	Carpet Cleaning: steam clean and deodorise
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$225.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$225.24

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.

Brett Patrick Fuller must pay [The landlord/s] $225.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 193, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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. Cleaning

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the tenant did not clean the oven or the base of the shower. The landlord provided an invoice for $95.00 for cleaning the property at the end of the tenancy. They provided one photograph of the shower which showed some residue, likely soap or detergent from the photograph, around the drain in the floor of the shower. From the photograph, the residue left appeared minimal, and could likely have been easily wiped off. There were no photographs provided of the condition of the oven at the end of the tenancy, nor any full outgoing inspection report with photographs of the overall condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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.

As there was no photograph of the oven’s condition at the end of the tenancy and the photograph of the shower floor showed, in my view, minimal residue which could easily have been wiped, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show the tenant likely did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, or to justify the cost of having to engage a cleaner at the end of the tenancy and so dismiss this claim. Carpet cleaning

The landlord said the tenant was allowed to have one cat, but they believed he had multiple cats living at the property. They indicated this led to the carpets in the property smelling of cats and the cats likely damaging the carpet (dealt with below in a separate claim for replacement of the carpet). The landlord claimed $477.25 for the cost of steam cleaning the carpet throughout the property and applying a carpet treatment to deodorise pet smells. They also claimed for the cost of a treatment to remove a blue stain dye in part of the carpet. However, there was no photograph or other evidence provided of the blue stain in the carpet in relation to its size, intensity, location or the ingoing versus outgoing inspection report photographs of that area of the carpet with the stain alleged. Therefore, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the requirement for treatment for the removal of a blue stain in the carpet.

However, the landlord provided an invoice from the carpet cleaner, which contained his report that pet odour counteractant products were applied to the carpet to address the cat-related odour, which I find was likely required as the tenant had at least one cat, possibly more, living at the property. As I find there is insufficient evidence about the blue stain in the carpet, the cost of the removal of a blue stain (and applicable GST) in the invoice, which comes to $171.35, is thus removed from the total claimed by the landlord for carpet cleaning of $477.25, leaving $305.90 for the steam cleaning and pet odour removal products application, which I award the landlord for carpet cleaning.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet replacement a. The landlord claimed the tenant’s cat or cats clawed the carpets and damaged them. The landlord provided some photographs of the edges of the carpet in the lounge and bedroom at the end of the tenancy and some photographs of the general condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided a quote to replace the carpet throughout the property for $2,875.00 but during the hearing said they were only claiming the insurance excess of $550.00 instead to replace the carpet. The property manager confirmed that the owner had not yet filed an insurance claim for the carpet, despite the tenancy ending on 16 July 2024. Further, the property manager indicated that the carpets had to be steam cleaned and deodorised as a new tenant was to move into the property shortly after this tenant left the property, and further acknowledged that the new/current tenant at the property is living with the carpet in the same condition as at the end of this tenancy. b. The photographs of the carpet provided for the start of the tenancy show good general condition of the carpet. However, there was one part of a carpet which ended abruptly and went onto a concrete floor, which the property manager said was by the front door, and another part of the carpet showed what the property manager said was a join, which appeared from the photograph to be close to fraying at the start of the tenancy. c. The photographs of the carpet at the end of the tenancy showed some fraying of the carpet at the edges of a few different parts of the carpet. d. The property manager said the owner has not yet replaced the carpet due to their finances. I note the property has been rented to a new tenant since this tenancy, with the carpet in the same condition, which indicates that any damage to the carpet was likely not significant. The owner has not yet filed an insurance claim for this carpet either and has only provided a quote for the carpet replacement, rather than an invoice. Whilst the property manager said the owner is likely to file an insurance claim and have the carpet replaced, this has not yet been done, and no cost has been incurred yet in relation to the carpet replacement, despite the tenancy ending almost 6 months before the hearing. Given the evidence, I am not satisfied that the owner will likely file an insurance claim or replace the carpet, based on the evidence outlined above. As such, the claim for the insurance excess of $550.00 to replace the carpet is dismissed. Heat pump remote e. The landlord claimed $103.50 for the replacement of the heat pump remote and provided an invoice in this amount to do so. The landlord provided only the first 4 pages of the ingoing inspection report from 9 November 2021, with a written narrative only, and no accompanying photographs. The property manager said the handwritten notes on this ingoing inspection report written narrative was their version of a final inspection report. f. The landlord pointed out that in this ingoing inspection report written narrative, the heat pump remote was mentioned as being provided at the start of the tenancy. However, other than the invoice to replace it, the landlord did not provide any further evidence about the heat pump remote, such as emails or texts with the tenant about the whereabouts of this heat pump remote at the end of the tenancy, for example. As such, whilst the remote was likely provided at the start of the tenancy, there is insufficient evidence to show the remote was missing at the end of the tenancy or that this might have been due to the tenant. Therefore, because of insufficient evidence as outlined above, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the cost of a heat pump remote. Curtains g. The landlord claimed the tenant removed two sets of curtains from the property, which had been provided at the start of the tenancy. They said one set of curtains was on a window in the bedroom and the other set on a window in the bathroom. The landlord provided before and after photographs of these windows showing the curtains on these windows at the start of the tenancy and the absence of these curtains at the end of the tenancy. The landlord further provided invoices and receipts showing the cost of two new sets of curtains, along with the cost of measuring up and having the curtains installed, which came to a total of $555.40. This included a receipt for $238.00 for the purchase of two sets of curtains and an invoice for $317.40 to measure up and install the curtains. I find the landlord has proved the tenant likely removed both sets of these curtains and that $555.40 is a reasonable cost to replace and install two new sets of curtains at the end of the tenancy. Given the evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. h. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. i. The landlord said the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy, which was in November 2021, around 3 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of curtains in a rental property is around 8 years. As such, I deduct the cost apportioned to the purchase of two new sets of curtains, which was $238.00, by 37% for depreciation to an award of $149.94 for the cost of new curtains. This is to be added to the cost incurred by the landlord for somebody to measure up and install the curtains, of $317.40, which then comes to $467.34, which I award to the landlord to replace and install two new sets of curtains. Bedroom wall damage j. The landlord claimed the tenant damaged part of the bedroom wall and believed the tenant’s cat had caused scratching damage to this wall. The landlord provided photographs of the bedroom wall at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, which showed that a part of the bedroom wall, at the corner where two walls met, had sustained some damage. Given the evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. k. The landlord said this damage was repaired and painted at a total cost of $460.00 and provided an invoice confirming this. I find this to be a reasonable cost to repair and paint the damaged wall. l. The landlord’s invoice for the repair did not apportion the repair to the wall versus the painting of the wall. However, I find that 50% of the total cost to repair and paint part of the bedroom wall, is reasonable to apportion equally as between the repair and the painting. As such, the apportioned painting cost would be $230.00. m. The landlord said the property was last painted in late 2019, around 5 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the apportioned painting cost of $230.00 by 50% for depreciation to an award of $115.00 for the painting. Added to the apportioned repair cost of $230.00, the total award to the landlord for the repair and painting of the wall is $345.00. n. Any damage as found above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details, and the tenancy address, are not to be published.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4964342 — net $225.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace and install new curtains	$467.34	Replace and install new curtains
Repairs: bedroom wall damage	$345.00	Repairs: bedroom wall damage
Carpet Cleaning: steam clean and deodorise	$305.90	Carpet Cleaning: steam clean and deodorise
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$225.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$225.24

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.

Brett Patrick Fuller must pay [The landlord/s] $225.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964342 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964342 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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