What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965135 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 4965135?

Compensation: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $177.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965135?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965135?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11330158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965135 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 4965135?

Compensation: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $177.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965135?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965135?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11330158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965135 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965135. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates to 1/7/24	$177.50		Water rates to 1/7/24
Compensation - Green waste removal	$30.00		Compensation - Green waste removal

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965135. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates to 1/7/24	$177.50		Water rates to 1/7/24
Compensation - Green waste removal	$30.00		Compensation - Green waste removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay MUJAHID SALEHIN KHAN $207.50 as calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants attended the hearing in person.
The landlord attended the hearing by phone.
The tenancy was the subject of two separate tenancy agreements between the tenants and landlord and commenced on 6 August 2020 and ended 1 July 2024.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this matter with these provisions in mind. See section 85 of the RTA.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Water rates
The landlord has provided water rates invoices and a photo of the water meter which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $177.50 and I make an order for water rates by consent for this amount.

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 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.
I note from the outset the landlord has largely provided no written quotes or invoices in support of the claims. The landlord said he had spoken to professionals about the estimated repair costs, but the verbal estimates he provided at the hearing were vague and I consider this evidence unreliable. Damage to door
The landlord claims $200 for damage to a door. The landlord seeks to replace the door. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The tenants say the damage was caused when one of the tenants accidentally fell over their dog. The tenants say the landlord did not respond to their email as to whether he wanted it repaired or replaced however they plastered it and left it unpainted.
I consider the damage likely to have been accidental. A tenant is not responsible for accidental damage.
The claim to replace the door is dismissed. Wall damage
The landlord claims $600 for damages to the walls.
The landlord says there was various areas of damage to the walls which are beyond fair wear and tear. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The tenant says they did not damage any walls however they did use the remaining plaster from the repair to the door in some preexisting holes around the premises.
Two of the photographs show cracks near windows which I consider are from wear and tear. The ingoing report records wall damage on a number of walls.
I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the tenant has damaged the walls or that the landlord has incurred any loss from any minor plastering undertaken by the tenant to preexisting damage.
The claim to repair the walls is dismissed. Carpet damage and clean
The landlord claims $400.00 in respect of carpet staining, carpet damage and general cleaning. I address the cleaning claim later in this decision. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim. Carpet damage
The landlord says the tenant damaged and stained the carpet. The landlord claims the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant says some of the photographs provided of carpet damage were of damage that was present at the commencement of the tenancy, which was supported by the ingoing inspection report and photographs.
On the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the tenant has caused any damage to the carpet beyond fair wear and tear.
In addition, the depreciation lifespan, according to the IRD IR265 (general depreciation rates) for carpet in a residence is 5-15 years. The landlord could not say how old the carpet was when he purchased the property in 2020 however the photographs show the carpet was aged and the tenants said that in one area the nails stuck out from the carpet. I consider it likely the carpet has exceeded its useful lifespan and was in a poor state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy. Accordingly, if I am wrong in my finding that the tenant is not responsible for damage to the carpet, I consider the landlord has not incurred a loss for which he should be compensated for.
The claim in respect of the carpet damage is dismissed. Oven damage
The landlord claims $500 for the replacement of the oven.
The landlord says the tenant damaged the oven internally by cooking something really hot in it and damaged the stove bracket which holds the element. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim. A photograph of the internal damage and the damaged element was provided. The landlord claims the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant says the internal damage was present at the start of the tenancy which is confirmed by the ingoing inspection report. The tenant also says the damage to the element is fair wear and tear.
I find on the evidence provided that the damage to the internal part of the oven did not occur during the tenancy and that the damage to the element is likely to be fair wear and tear.
The landlord said he purchased the property in 2020 and the oven was 5-10 years old at the time. The depreciation lifespan, according to the IRD IR265 (general depreciation rates) for an oven in a residence is 8 years. The oven usual lifespan has therefore ended.
Accordingly, if I am wrong in my findings about the damage then I consider the landlord has not incurred a loss, nor has he provided evidence in support of the amount claimed by way of an invoice for the replacement oven.
The claim for replacement of the oven is dismissed. Fire alarm
The landlord claims $40.00 to replace the fire alarm that was not present at the end of the tenancy. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The landlord says a fire alarm was provided at the start of the tenancy and the tenant has removed it.
The tenants agree that the alarm was present at the start of the tenancy however they say the property manager removed it when they reported it as faulty.
The landlord refuted this evidence on the basis he had seen the fire alarm when he attended at the property during the tenancy. The tenant’s confirmed the property manager removed the alarm after the landlord had been at the property.
The tenants gave consistent, clear and detailed evidence in relation to the fire alarm, and I consider it likely the landlord was not advised by his property manager that the fire alarm had been removed by the property manager.
The claim for the replacement cost of the fire alarm is dismissed. Glass in garage
The landlord claims $150 to replace a broken window in the garage. The landlord claims the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The tenant says they found the window broken but did not cause the damage. The tenant says the damage is the result of the rotting wooden window frames not holding the glass in place.
I consider the photographs show that the window frames are not in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants provided detailed evidence about the window breaking and I consider it likely the window broke because of the fair wear and tear of the window frame.
I do not consider the damage to be careless or intentional damage by the tenant but damage that is the consequence of the landlord not ensuring the window frame was in a reasonable state of repair to hold the glass.
Accordingly, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage and the claim is dismissed. Kitchen tap
The landlord claims $140 from the tenant to repair the kitchen tap. The landlord claims the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided an invoice for the repair of the tap.
The tenant accepts damaging the kitchen tap handle by tightening to stop it from leaking after the internal mechanism began to fail. I understand the taps internal mechanism required repair in 2023 but only a temporary repair was completed. The tenant says they raised the issue in relation to the tap a number of times and provided evidence of this.
I do not consider damage from the tenant tightening the tap to stop it from leaking to be careless or intentional damage but damage that is the consequence of the landlord not adequately attending to the repair of the tap.
Accordingly, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage and the claim is dismissed. Compensation for water damage to hot water cupboard.
The application form states the landlord sought exemplary damages in relation to a leaking hot water cylinder. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the claim was for compensation not exemplary damages. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The landlord says the tenant caused the damage carelessly by having property in the hot water cupboard which must have damaged the pipe. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises. See section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
The landlord claims compensation on the basis the tenant failed to notify him of damage to the hot water cylinder pipe. The tenant says they were not aware of any water leak to the pipe and the area was dry when they vacated the tenancy.
The tenant says they kept linen and soft shopping bags in the cupboard. The tenant also raised that the undated photograph provided by the landlord of the leak appears to have been taken some time after the tenancy ended as there is a metal bowl in the cupboard that does not belong to them.
I consider the pipe appeared aged and not in a reasonable state of repair. I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was a leak to the hot water pipe during the tenancy or that the tenant has carelessly or intentionally caused damage to the pipe, resulting in a leak or any water damage.
The claim in respect of the water cupboard is dismissed.

ADDITIONAL CLAIMS

Compensation for termination of tenancy / travel costs

The landlord claims $200.00 for his travel costs for travelling from Auckland, where he lives, to Tauranga on two occasions. One trip was to clean the premises and one trip was to remove rubbish and install a new oven. As I have determined the tenant is not liable in respect of the cleaning and the oven, I do not make an order for travel costs in relation to these claims. The claims for the landlords travel costs is dismissed. Carpet cleaning and general cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. (Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8). Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. (Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009). Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. (Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998).
Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. (Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008). 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 undated photographs he said were of the premises at the end of the tenancy which show some marks on the walls and fly spots at the end of the tenancy and some dirt on the floor.
The tenant provided dated photographs showing fly spots on the ceiling and marks on surfaces from the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant disputes they were responsible for the small amount of dirt on the carpet and say it may have been caused by the landlord and subsequent tenant who was moving on the same day the tenant was vacating.
The tenants say they spent days cleaning and had the carpet shampoos.
I am not satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and I consider the premises was likely returned to the landlord as clean as it was at the commencement of the tenancy.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. Rubbish removal
The landlord claimed $80.00 for the removal of the tenant’s rubbish and green waste.
No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The tenant denies any rubbish removal was required.
The evidence in support of the claim in respect of rubbish removal was a photograph of toys outside a door. The tenants say the photographs appear to have been taken some time after the tenancy ended as the toys do not belong to the tenant’s and they may belong to the subsequent tenants.
At the end of the hearing the tenant asked to provide video evidence after the hearing to confirm that the subsequent tenant’s children were present when they were in the process of vacating the tenancy. The landlord objected to this evidence being provided.
I have determined this matter without viewing the footage as that landlord has not had the opportunity to it and the landlord advised by email to the Tribunal after the hearing that toys were not claimed as rubbish.
On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that rubbish removal other than green waste.
The tenant accepted there was some green waste on the property.
I consider the landlord should be compensated for the tenant not removing their green waste and make an order for the amount of $30.00 to reflect the time I consider it would have taken to dispose of the small amount of green waste. Glass in lounge
The landlord claims $300 to replace the glass in the lounge where the tenant installed a cat door. No quotes or invoices were provided in support of the claim.
The tenant says there was consent to the install the cat door.
The landlord confirmed there was consent however this was conditional on the tenant removing the cat door at the end of the tenancy and replacing the glass.
The tenant provided emails between themselves and the property manager which confirms the landlord consented to the cat door being installed and there was no condition from the landlord requiring the door to be returned to its original state at the end of the tenancy.
Accordingly, given the landlord consented unconditionally to the cat door being installed I dismiss the claim. Bond
Half of the bond has been refunded to the tenant and the tenant has not applied for the balance of the bond. The Bond centre is not holding a bond for this tenancy therefore I have not made any order with respect to the bond. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been substantially successful in his claims, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek 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 because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA.
The tenant has had substantial success in defending the landlords claims and I make an order suppressing their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965135 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965135 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

ADDITIONAL CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

ADDITIONAL CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions