How much money was awarded in case 4972173?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Fix One Indent On Wall: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 3 X Wine Glasses: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972173?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4972173?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Fix One Indent On Wall: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 3 X Wine Glasses: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972173?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972173 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972173 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 4972173 — net $209.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$92.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: fix one indent on wall	$70.00	Repairs: fix one indent on wall
Replace 3 x wine glasses	$20.00	Replace 3 x wine glasses
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$209.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$209.00

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

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $209.00 from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the parties as follows: [The landlord/s] - $209.00 [The tenant/s] - $1,991.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s], representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], the tenant, both attended the video hearing.

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

The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 11 July 2024.

The landlord did not provide a copy of a Tenancy Agreement, indicating it took over management of the property from another company, and could not find a copy of the Tenancy Agreement. The tenant acknowledged, however, that she had been dealing with this landlord and confirmed they had been managing her tenancy before she left. The tenant added that the property had been managed by several companies during her tenancy. Had the tenant not acknowledged that she had been dealing with this landlord, the landlord would not have been able to prove their status in being able to file an application as the landlord of this property.

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 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. Cleaning

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed the cost for cleaning walls, a duvet inner, a carpet clean and cleaning a couch chair. The tenant said she cleaned the property before she left and the only cleaning she could not do before she left was the carpet. She acknowledged there would have been dust under the bed on the carpet. The tenant said she left the duvet inner for the benefit of the next tenant and denied causing any stains on the couch chair. The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report or an Outgoing Inspection Report, or any photographs. During the hearing the landlord attempted to hold up some photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy to the video screen but they were not very clear. However, the tenant agreed to the cost claimed for carpet cleaning by the landlord, which was $80.00 plus GST, coming to $92.00. As I find the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the rest of their cleaning cost claim, I award the landlord $92.00, GST inclusive, for carpet cleaning, as agreed to by the tenant. Missing inventory

The landlord said the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: 1 x teacup, 4 x tall glasses, 4 x small glasses, 4 x wine glasses, 1 x lounge mat, 1 x large pot with lid, soap and toothbrush holder, cooking utensils, peeler and can opener, utensil tray and vacuum cleaner. The landlord only provided an inventory list that had items listed but there was no tenancy property address, no names of parties and no signature of either party on the inventory list provided. There was no further evidence provided by the landlord of these items missing at the end of the tenancy, or that the tenant had taken them.

The tenant denied she had taken any of the inventory alleged to be missing. She said she had provided her vacuum cleaner and she left it there at the end of the tenancy, along with other items of hers for the use of the next tenant. She clarified the landlord had not provided a vacuum cleaner at the property. She explained that she left everything that was there at the start of the tenancy, apart from 3 wine glasses. There was no specific cost of a wine glass paid by the landlord at the end of the tenancy, just a total figure for missing inventory. There were no receipts provided for the cost of replacing any of the items alleged to be missing. I find a reasonable amount to replace 3 wine glasses to be $20.00 and award this to the landlord to replace the 3 wine glasses that the tenant agreed she had not replaced at the end of the tenancy.

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: Wall indents a. The landlord said the tenant caused 2 small indentations in the small bedroom. The tenant said there was only 1 small indent made when taking out furniture from the room. She said she would get it fixed and arrange for that but was told by the property manager not to. She said she had a quote for $70.00 to get the indent fixed, and could have done this before she moved out, had she been permitted, as she had time to do so. b. The landlord said that matching the paint can be difficult. The tenant said the paint colours are available on the property website. The landlord attempted to hold up an unclear photograph of a mark on a wall as evidence of the indents. However, this was unclear and there was no other photographic evidence provided by the landlord of the indents alleged. As such, I find there was 1 indent in the wall, as admitted to by the tenant. c. As the tenant said the indent in the wall was caused by taking out furniture from the room, I find this damage to be careless on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap. d. As the landlord could not provide a copy of the Tenancy Agreement, which usually specifies the insurance excess, and there was no other evidence of the insurance excess, if any, applicable to the property, I cannot consider an amount of insurance excess that applied to the tenancy. e. As the tenant was not provided with the opportunity of repairing the indent before she left, despite her offer to do so, and the tenant’s evidence that the paint could easily have been matched from the landlord’s website information about paint colours, I find a reasonable cost to repair 1 indent in the wall, caused carelessly, to be $70.00, as quoted to the tenant. Washing machine f. The landlord said the tenant damaged the washing machine during the tenancy and claimed $699.98 for this. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence, such as photographs or an assessment report of how any damage might have been caused, showing the damage to the washing machine, only an estimate from the washing machine company saying the outer bowl was punctured and needed to be repaired and providing an estimate for the repair, for $699.98, which the landlord said was repaired at this cost. The tenant denied damaging the washing machine and said she reported the issue to the property manager when it was discovered. I find there was insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove the tenant caused this damage during the tenancy and so dismiss this claim. g. The damage found above, namely 1 indent in a wall, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the parties as follows: [The landlord/s] - $209.00 [The tenant/s] - $1,991.00 Filing fee

As the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee. Suppression

Both parties requested name suppression. The landlord has been partly successful with the claim and so is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

The evidence showed the tenant made efforts to clean the property before leaving, left her own items for the benefit of the next tenant and ascertained quotes for the indent in the wall she admitted had been careless damage. She admitted to missing glasses, the indent and the carpet needing cleaning, despite the landlord’s lack of evidence about these items. The tenant also acknowledged the landlord was managing her tenancy. Without this acknowledgement, the landlord would not have been able to prove their landlord status, given the lack of a Tenancy Agreement provided by them. Given this evidence, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4972173 — net $209.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$92.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: fix one indent on wall	$70.00	Repairs: fix one indent on wall
Replace 3 x wine glasses	$20.00	Replace 3 x wine glasses
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$209.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$209.00

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

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $209.00 from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the parties as follows: [The landlord/s] - $209.00 [The tenant/s] - $1,991.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s], representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], the tenant, both attended the video hearing.

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

The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 11 July 2024.

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. Refund of the bond

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the parties as follows: [The landlord/s] - $209.00 [The tenant/s] - $1,991.00 Filing fee

As the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972173 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972173 — Cleanliness

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