How much money was awarded in case 4994950?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels & Furnishings: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $152.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994950?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11238705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4994950?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels & Furnishings: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $152.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994950?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11238705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994950 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4994950 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 4994950 — net $2,550.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$152.32	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning: mattress & upholstery	$600.00	Cleaning: mattress & upholstery
Repairs to walls	$220.80	Repairs to walls
Replace chattels & furnishings	$650.00	Replace chattels & furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,550.12
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,550.12

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Elysha Marie Mauheni is to pay [The landlord/s] $2,550.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,550.12 Elysha Marie Mauheni: $449.88

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representative], attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Three calls were made to the tenant, and each went to voicemail. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.

This tenancy began on 10 January 2024 and ended on 9 May 2024. The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred at the end of the tenancy, payment from the bond and the filing fee.

The hearing was adjourned part-heard and concluded on the papers to allow the landlord additional time to provide further evidence. No additional evidence was provided. The landlord’s claims are considered below.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims general cleaning, carpet cleaning, upholstery and mattress cleaning, and rubbish removal costs. The landlord also claims the insurance excess of $650.00 for missing chattels. Cleaning and rubbish removal

The landlord has provided photographs and invoices in support of the cleaning and rubbish removal costs. The landlord’s photographic evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish removal cost, based on the invoice, is awarded in full, as I find this to be reasonable.

In terms of the cleaning, the landlord seeks extensive costs, based on two invoices. The invoice for general cleaning is $3,210.08, and another invoice for carpet, upholstery, and mattress cleaning totals $1,200.00.

The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 . This 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 does not equate to being commercially clean 3 , spotless 4 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 5 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 6 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 7

In this case, I find the landlord’s claimed cleaning costs to be excessive. The invoice from AJ Cleanup Crew for general cleaning of the premises did not include carpet cleaning, and came to a total of $3,210.08. Based on the photographic evidence provided, this cost is well beyond what the Tribunal would expect to bring this premises (a four bedroom, two bathroom home, with two living areas) up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. From the description provided in the invoice, it is apparent there was extensive cleaning undertaken. The invoice also includes labour to take linen to a laundromat, complete laundry, and fold and sort linen. The tenant cannot be held liable for this additional work.

Therefore, taking all these factors into account, including the photographic evidence, and noting what the average cleaning cost is likely to be for a home of this size, $700.00 is considered reasonable compensation for general cleaning.

The landlord claims carpet cleaning and cleaning of mattresses and upholstery. The total invoice from Chemdry is $1,200.00. It is accepted that the carpet required further cleaning and therefore, the amount of $200.00 for carpet cleaning is awarded ($174.00 plus GST). However, I decline to award the cost of deodorising the carpet, since there is no evidence this was required at the end of the tenancy.

The premises was furnished and, based on the evidence provided, it is accepted that the landlord is to be compensated for the cost of cleaning the upholstery and mattresses, although not all items listed in this invoice are awarded. Therefore, $600.00 is considered reasonable, noting this invoice also includes the application of an upholstery protector, and deodorising of mattresses and upholstery. Missing chattels

The landlord has provided a detailed list of the chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy. The items included a rug, side table, soft furnishings, cutlery and utensils, various kitchen items, and bedding. The landlord has also provided a detailed inventory of the items provided at the start of the tenancy, and has confirmed that the items were all in good condition. The landlord’s oral evidence 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 4 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 5 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 6 Richards v Scally (above) 7 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. is that the insurance claim, as listed in the application, has been accepted, and the insurance excess of $650.00 is sought. This is awarded above.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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) of the RTA. In this case the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $650.00. The rent for the premises is $750.00 per week. .

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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.

From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including an invoice for repair), I am satisfied that the damage to the walls was caused during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the repair cost of $220.80.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account 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. Name suppression and filing fee

An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful in the proceedings.

The tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with its application.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994950 — net $2,550.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$152.32	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning: mattress & upholstery	$600.00	Cleaning: mattress & upholstery
Repairs to walls	$220.80	Repairs to walls
Replace chattels & furnishings	$650.00	Replace chattels & furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,550.12
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,550.12

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Elysha Marie Mauheni is to pay [The landlord/s] $2,550.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,550.12 Elysha Marie Mauheni: $449.88

Reasons

This tenancy began on 10 January 2024 and ended on 9 May 2024. The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred at the end of the tenancy, payment from the bond and the filing fee.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved.

The tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee, since the landlord has been successful with its application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994950 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994950 — 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