What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4987928 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 4987928?

Consent Order Award: $1,016.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987928?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11169985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4987928 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 4987928?

Consent Order Award: $1,016.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987928?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11169985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Dromoland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4987928 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987928. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$1,016.00		Consent order award

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987928. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Consent order award	$1,016.00		Consent order award

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the remaining bond of $1,016.00 ([Bond number suppressed]), to [The tenant/s].

Reasons

Ms Wood, representing the landlord, along with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], on behalf of all the tenants, attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The applicant landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenants 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 (“RTA”).
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.
The landlord said the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice dated 19 August 2024, for $534.75, with a narrative of what was cleaned at the property following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed $534.75 for the cost of cleaning. The narrative on the invoice from the cleaning company included cleaning walls and skirtings, the inside and outside of kitchen cabinetry, as required, window frames, wiping over plug points and light switches and doors, mopping hard floors and vacuuming carpet. This cleaning invoice did not include any narrative or cost charged for cleaning or replacing curtains at the property. No other evidence of any cost for cleaning or replacing curtains was provided by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the tenants left the property clean but said it was not to a reasonable standard. They said there were grubby soap scum marks left on the shower and grubby walls that had not been wiped. The landlord said the cleaner had mostly wiped walls, windowsills and the shower glass. The landlord said the backs of some curtains that were facing the window had mold spots on them also.
The landlord provided an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 9 August 2024. The written comments by the landlord in this report include that the walls and doors in the lounge were in reasonable condition, with minimal marking and light scuffing throughout, the kitchen floors were in excellent condition, all other walls were noted as being in fair and reasonable condition. The written comments noted further a scuff mark in the sitting room and another scuff mark in the bedroom. The photographs provided with this Report showed a property that was reasonably clean and tidy, with the shower glass door being clean but not perfectly pristine, in my view.
The tenants disputed the cleaning claim and said that two of the three tenants had spent a week before vacating the property, after their furniture and belongings had been moved out, cleaning the property thoroughly. They said they had other assistance also in this cleaning. The tenants provided a walk- through video and photographs of each room in the property at the end of the tenancy. These photographs and the video provided showed a property that appeared to be certainly reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants also provided photographs captured from Trade me, when the tenancy property was advertised on there for rent, just days after they left the tenancy. These photographs show the property being in good condition and certainly reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord said the Trade me photographs had been ‘edited’, and provided a statement from an administrative staff at their company, confirming that, as regards the photographs they took at the property for the photoshoot, “the scuffs and marks on the walls were edited out to present a cleaner appearance.” It is concerning that the landlord essentially altered the photographs to show the property as being different to what they say it actually was at the end of the tenancy, to try and attract new tenants.
I find that much of the cleaning work contained in the narrative of the landlord’s cleaning invoice provided was cleaning that goes beyond the tenant standard of reasonably clean and tidy, such as wiping walls and doors and skirtings and light fittings and kitchen cabinetry. From the tenant’s photographs which showed very clean hard floors and carpets, I do not see the need for the landlord to have cleaned the floors and carpets again, when the tenants left. Whilst the shower glass door was not pristine to the landlord’s standard, the tenant said they had cleaned the shower door and it was in reasonable condition, which I accept, as the tenants provided photographs of the shower glass door also.
Whilst the landlord mentioned some mold spots on the backs of some curtains, there is nothing in the cleaning invoice narrative about any cleaning of curtains or replacement of curtains, nor any other cost evidence provided about this. I find the landlord has not proved the cost of any rectification required to the curtains, as such.
Given the tenants’ photographs and other evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, which was reasonably clean and tidy, and that much of the cleaning invoice narrative I find contained cleaning jobs which go beyond the tenant standard of reasonably clean and tidy, and the lack of proof of any curtain cleaning cost, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants likely did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

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: a. The landlord claimed for the cost of patching up and painting what they said were multiple gouges in the walls at the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said this cost them $454.25. b. I note the written comments made by the landlord in their Outgoing Inspection Report dated 19 August 2024, that there was a scuff mark in the sitting room and another scuff mark in the bedroom, as well as minimal marking and light scuffing in the lounge, and all other walls noted as being in fair and reasonable condition. c. The tenants said there were a few light scuff marks on the walls that they believed were fair wear and tear after living in the property for 4 years. They pointed to their photographs that they said showed the walls were left in fairly reasonable condition. d. The photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report provided by the landlord showed some walls in the property with light scuffing, which I would describe as attributable to fair wear and tear at the property. e. The landlord provided photographs taken by the property owner, which I have also considered, along with the landlord’s Outgoing Inspection Report, its comments, and its photographs. f. From the evidence provided, I am not persuaded that the light scuffing on some of the walls, as per the landlord’s photographs, and given the written comments made by the property manager in the Outgoing Inspection Report to this effect, were other than fair wear and tear. As such, I find the landlord has not proved the tenants likely caused damage beyond fair wear and tear and must dismiss the claim. Refund of the bond
As the landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed, I do not award any of the bond to the landlord. The parties agreed that the tenants have already received a partial refund of the total bond of $3,280, in the amount of $2,264.00, pursuant to a mediator’s order dated 27 September 2024, earlier in this application, to this effect, by consent. Thus, there is $1,016.00 remaining of the bond at the Bond Centre, which had been disputed by the parties.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the remaining bond of $1,016.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s]. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been successful with the claim, I do not award the filing fee to the landlord. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenants all requested name suppression.
As the landlord’s application is dismissed, it is appropriate that I grant the tenants’ request for name suppression, as I find the tenants’ interests in not publishing their names outweighs the public interest in publishing their names, particularly as the tenants have children and some are sole income earners in their family.
Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987928 — Mould & damp at 7 Dromoland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987928 — Mould & damp at 7 Dromoland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions