What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972033 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $5,060.55.

How much money was awarded in case 4972033?

Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,281.45 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $188.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972033?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972033 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $5,060.55.

How much money was awarded in case 4972033?

Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,281.45 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $188.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972033?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972033 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4972033 — net $5,060.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Blinds	$188.60	Repairs: Blinds
Carpet Cleaning	$218.50	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs joinery	$4,281.45	Repairs joinery
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,060.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,060.55

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claimed they had to clean the floors, wall scuffs, cobwebs, dead bugs, fly faeces, windows, blinds, stains on the kitchen bench, windows. They had to vacuum the carpet and floors then clean the hand basin, toilet shower, floor around the drain. An invoice to substantiate the cleaning was provided and photographs of the vacate inspection report which showed the property was not cleaned.

The Tenant disputed the costs because they were not given an opportunity to rectify the outstanding dirty areas. The Landlord never notified them after they had paid a professional cleaner to undertake the job. The Tenants text messaged the Landlord they completed their cleaning on 19 June 2024 but did not hear back from the Landlord. They assumed therefore that there were no issues with the cleaning. They moved out on 2 July 2024 and the Landlord conducted a vacate inspection on 2 July 2024. The Tenant would have gone back to the cleaners and advised them to remedy the outstanding cleaning issues had they been notified of the issues.

The Landlord claimed the carpet required cleaning because there were stains in every bedroom, pet hair and debris. When the parties moved in, the carpet was brand new. The Landlord reported the stains smelt like dog and still smells today. Photographs of the stains and an invoice for the carpet cleaning was provided.

Section 40(1)(e) of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the Tenant shall leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal of all rubbish. The Landlord is not obliged to notify the Tenant if the property is not clean however it would have been helpful to the Tenant. In terms of the carpet cleaning, the Tenants had a dog on the premises so the cleaning was required.

In considering the evidence, the photographs, invoice and vacate inspection report indicate that the Tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Landlord was not obliged to provide the Tenant with an opportunity to undertake the remaining 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Blind repairs and aluminium joinery.

Blind repairs: The Landlord claimed there were repairs required to the kitchen blinds so they had to replace them An invoice was shown for the repairs and photographs of the blinds with bent slats. The Landlord submitted the blinds were rolled up at the vacate inspection so it appeared as if there was no damage.

The Tenant disputed the repairs to the kitchen blinds advising that they never used this blind and they only learnt of the damage through the Landlord’s Tribunal claim. They submitted the blinds were pulled up at the end of the tenancy but they were not damaged. The blind flip often came undone, but the blinds were still working.

In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided an invoice for the repair required to the blinds to substantiate their claim. The Tenant did not submit any evidence to prove the blind was in good working order.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Aluminium joinery: The Landlord claimed for multiple scratch marks on the joinery throughout the property which they speculated was caused by the Tenant’s two dogs. There were photographs, ingoing inspection reports and an invoice to substantiate the cost. The Landlord stated the front door was also scratched. The damage was not covered by the Landlord’s insurance.

The Tenant disputed this damage stating that it could have been the neighbours dog that damaged the door. They submitted they should have had an opportunity to obtain a quote themselves.

The Landlord disputed this advising that the Tenant was unwilling to work with the Landlord at the end of the tenancy. The Tenant had told them the damage ‘was not their problem’ however the Landlord would have been happy for the Tenants to obtain their own quote.

Section 45 of the RTA provides that a Landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is the Landlords responsibility to make the repairs and they are not obliged to allow a Tenant to obtain quotes for the repairs.

In considering the evidence, I find the joinery was substantially damaged and the Tenants did not deny it. There were photographs, an invoice and an ingoing inspection report to support the damages. I find the damage was intentional given the Tenants kept the dogs in the house knowing that they had caused damage to the joinery. They caused extensive damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4972033 — net $5,060.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Blinds	$188.60	Repairs: Blinds
Carpet Cleaning	$218.50	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs joinery	$4,281.45	Repairs joinery
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,060.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,060.55

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Blind repairs and aluminium joinery.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The Tenant disputed this damage stating that it could have been the neighbours dog that damaged the door. They submitted they should have had an opportunity to obtain a quote themselves.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972033 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972033 — Property damage

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