What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4988528 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 4988528?

Cleaning: $1,983.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $98.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $2,032.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Glass Restoration: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988528?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11134515-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4988528 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 4988528?

Cleaning: $1,983.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $98.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $2,032.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Glass Restoration: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988528?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11134515-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4988528 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988528 — net $5,791.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,983.75	Cleaning
Blind cleaning and repair	$98.48	Blind cleaning and repair
Shower glass restoration	$650.00	Shower glass restoration
Lawns and Garden work: and internal patching and painting	$2,032.00	Lawns and Garden work: and internal patching and painting
Insurance excess (punctured kitchen sink	$1,000.00	Insurance excess (punctured kitchen sink
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,791.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,791.23

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenancy ended on 31 July 2024.

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 landlord has claimed for cleaning costs of $1,983.75. Photographs have been provided of the property before the tenancy and after the tenancy, and it is clear from these that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The cleaning invoice itself states that cleaning of the property was required after the tenancy vacated without cleaning all, and further states that “this was not a normal exit clean, this house was extremely filthy and took my staff a lot of time to get it clean to do [sic] a reasonable standard”. The invoice itself is for 3 staff for 11.5 hours.

In addition, the landlord has claimed for shower door restoration. The landlord says this was done just prior to the tenancy and that due to insufficient ongoing cleaning of the property during the tenancy, the shower door could not be cleaned with regular cleaning methods. Instead, a full restoration was required.

An invoice was provided for $650.00 for glass restoration.

Cleaning had been raised as an issue at routine property inspections as confirmed by an inspection report provided.

The tenant admits that they were unable to clean the property prior to leaving due to being unwell and unable. The tenant disputes the amount and believes they could have arranged cleaning at a lower rate, had they been allowed. However, that did not occur, and the landlord was entitled to have the property reasonably clean and tidy.

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. Punctured kitchen sink

The landlord has claimed for a punctured kitchen sink. Photographs provided show a distinct hole in the corner of the stainless-steel sink.

It is not clear what has caused the hole; however, the landlord submits that it must have been significant force to create a small hole through steel and suggested it may have been through seafood shucking or something similar.

The tenant disagrees and does not know how the hole got there.

The landlord advises that there is some swelling of the cabinetry below the sink (with supporting photographs), suggesting that the hole was created towards the end of the tenancy, as if it had been there for longer the damage would have been significantly worse. The tenant advises that she had not noticed any leaking or water under the sink below the hole, although says she did not like to clean below the sink.

The landlord submits that due to the force required to puncture a hole in stainless steel, that this was more than fair wear and tear, and was at least careless. The repairs required have included a full kitchen bench uplift, and replacement of the sink. Insurance has provided the landlord cover for the damage caused by the punctured sink.

Accordingly, the landlord is only claiming for the insurance excess of $1,000.00 and has provided an invoice in support of this amount. Blind repair and cleaning

The landlord has claimed for the cost to repair blinds, together with blind cleaning. The total cost for this work was $398.48 as confirmed by an invoice, however, due to the bond already being recovered, the landlord is only claiming the remaining $98.48.

Photographs have been provided that show damage to the blinds, together with evidence that the blinds required cleaning. The tenant did not dispute this damage, however, repeats the submission that they were unable to clean the property prior to vacating. Wall damage, painting repairs and grass restoration

The landlord has claimed for wall repairs because of holes throughout the property at the end of the tenancy. Specifically, the landlord has provided photographs of holes in the lounge walls, bedroom walls, and doors.

In some locations the tenant had endeavoured to remedy these holes, however, further work was required, together with painting. The tenant submits that they did repair the holes (some of which were likely caused by their children), but due to being unwell at the end of the tenancy they were unable to do further coats or finish the work.

In addition, outside the property, the tenant had built a deck over the lawn. When they vacated the property, they removed the deck and underneath the grass had died and requiring resowing.

There was also rubbish left at the property, including a full recycling bin worth of rubbish and an old bike.

Photographs have been provided of the damaged lawn and rubbish left at the property. The landlord submits that this damage was more than fair wear and tear and was at least careless.

The landlord has provided an invoice that includes internal wall maintenance work (including patching and painting), rubbish disposal charges and lawn repairs of $2,032.00. Summary

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the blinds, wall damage and a punctured kitchen sink. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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.

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

The landlord sought suppression in the application form. At the hearing the tenant also sought suppression on the basis that they have been mentally affected because of living at the property, including experiencing verbal and written abuse by certain property managers. They also submitted that they did want to clean the property but were unwell and simply unable. They do not want the occurrence with this property to affect their ability to obtain future tenancies when this was not how they would usually act.

I am satisfied that the concerns raised by the tenant outweigh the public interest in publishing the tenant’s names. R Harvey-Lane 27 November 2024

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988528 — net $5,791.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,983.75	Cleaning
Blind cleaning and repair	$98.48	Blind cleaning and repair
Shower glass restoration	$650.00	Shower glass restoration
Lawns and Garden work: and internal patching and painting	$2,032.00	Lawns and Garden work: and internal patching and painting
Insurance excess (punctured kitchen sink	$1,000.00	Insurance excess (punctured kitchen sink
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,791.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,791.23

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenancy ended on 31 July 2024.

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

An invoice was provided for $650.00 for glass restoration.

Cleaning had been raised as an issue at routine property inspections as confirmed by an inspection report provided.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed for a punctured kitchen sink. Photographs provided show a distinct hole in the corner of the stainless-steel sink.

The tenant disagrees and does not know how the hole got there.

Accordingly, the landlord is only claiming for the insurance excess of $1,000.00 and has provided an invoice in support of this amount. Blind repair and cleaning

In addition, outside the property, the tenant had built a deck over the lawn. When they vacated the property, they removed the deck and underneath the grass had died and requiring resowing.

There was also rubbish left at the property, including a full recycling bin worth of rubbish and an old bike.

Photographs have been provided of the damaged lawn and rubbish left at the property. The landlord submits that this damage was more than fair wear and tear and was at least careless.

The landlord has provided an invoice that includes internal wall maintenance work (including patching and painting), rubbish disposal charges and lawn repairs of $2,032.00. Summary

The amounts ordered are proved.

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

I am satisfied that the concerns raised by the tenant outweigh the public interest in publishing the tenant’s names. R Harvey-Lane 27 November 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4988528 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4988528 — Cleanliness

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