What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998194 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names,

How much money was awarded in case 4998194?

Picture Hole Remediation: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpets - 3/8th…: $562.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998194?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11354408-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998194 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names,

How much money was awarded in case 4998194?

Picture Hole Remediation: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpets - 3/8th…: $562.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998194?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11354408-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

123C Pyes Pa Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998194 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998194 — net $652.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpets - 3/8ths of 3 x excesses	$562.50	Replace furnishings: carpets - 3/8ths of 3 x excesses
Repairs: picture hole remediation	$90.00	Repairs: picture hole remediation
Net award	$652.50
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$652.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998194 — net $652.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpets - 3/8ths of 3 x excesses	$562.50	Replace furnishings: carpets - 3/8ths of 3 x excesses
Repairs: picture hole remediation	$90.00	Repairs: picture hole remediation
Net award	$652.50
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$652.50

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names, must not be published
[The tenants] must pay Krystal Jade Anderson $652.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Krystal Jade Anderson: $652.50 [The tenants]: $1,667.50

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
The landlord attended the hearing on her own behalf.
The guarantors represented the tenants. One of the tenants, who is the guarantors’ daughter, also attended the hearing and gave evidence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment over of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants and the guarantors filed a cross-application in response to the landlord’s application. Their application does not raise further claims. Background
The landlord purchased this premises in about late 2018. The premises were about a year old by then but had barely been used. The landlord lived in the premises for about 10 months. She let the premises to other tenants for about 12 months. This tenancy began on 1 October 2021 and ended 9 August 2024, a duration of a little over two years and four months.
The tenants are young and inexperienced. The tenant who attended was only 17 years old when the tenancy began. Her parent went guarantors for the tenants for the tenancy.
The landlord was aware the tenants were young, but kindly wanted to support them.
During the tenancy, the tenants had a baby. Once a toddler, the child had a couple of mishaps: spilling Fanta on the living room’s and a bedroom’s carpets, and a chemical substance on the garage carpet.
The tenants also hung up pictures on the walls, making holes in the walls when they did so.
The tenancy was managed by a property management company, Evans Property Management. Evans Property Management did not represent the landlord in the proceedings. However, I heard evidence from Janine Evans, who managed the majority of the tenancy, and Shevaun Monckton, who managed the tenancy in its latter stages.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants had the premises professionally cleaned. However, the carpet stains could not be removed.
Ms Monckton’s detailed exit inspection report noted the carpet stains but did not record any cleanliness issues.
The landlord was unhappy with some aspects of how the tenants had left the premises. In consultation with the property manager, the guarantors spent a lot of personal time and considerable cost to try and clean the carpets, fix the holes in the walls, and address the landlord’s other concerns.
The parties could not come to a resolution between themselves about the remaining issues, so the Tribunal is required to make orders that fairly allocate the bond.

Did the tenants fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Legal principles

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 2
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA0 s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. Discussion
The landlord and the tenants produced some photographs of selected parts of the premises. The photographs suggest the tenants left the premises clean to at least a reasonable standard.
The landlord’s own agent, an experienced and professional company, considered the premises were left clean. The report notes Sellotape left on the back of a door. That is an example of isolated uncleanliness/tidiness. Isolated instances of that nature may not lead to a finding that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean overall, however.
The tenants and the guarantors said they left the premises clean. I found their evidence credible. Conclusion
Applying the objective bystander test, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean.
This claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for the following alleged damage to the premises: irremovable carpet stains in three places; multiple screw and nail holes in the walls; the living room curtain backings had multiple small tears; moisture damage to windowsills and curtains; and a dent to the folding washing line. Legal principles
To succeed in her claim, the landlord must prove that the alleged damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants 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. 3 3 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
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. 4
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. 5 Carpet stains
Two of the carpet stains were probably from Fanta that the tenants gave to their child. It is reasonably likely that a toddler roaming with a drink is liable to spill the drink. To limit the risk of damage to carpets, reasonably prudent steps would be to have the child sit in a highchair or otherwise not be allowed to roam, or not to give the child a drink that will irreversibly stain carpet.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants conduct around the stains was not careless.
Similarly, for the carpet staining in the garage, it would have been reasonably prudent to secure the laundry cupboard or ensure the child did not have access to the garage. Then, the child could not have consumed the cleaning product and vomited it back up, causing the damage. I am not satisfied the tenants were not careless in respect to that damage either.
I need to take account of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations but should not be better or worse off.
The premises and the carpet were about three years old before the tenancy began. The tenancy lasted for almost three years. The carpet was in good condition prior to the tenancy beginning and had hardly been used by the original owner.
The landlord’s loss is three excesses of $500.00. In an insurance payout case like this, there is an element of windfall to the landlord to take into account. The landlord benefits by having a brand new carpet at a much reduced cost. The landlord points out she was inconvenienced and had to spend a further $2,000.00 to replace undamaged carpet to match the new carpet. However, it is likely she “underpaid” for the brand new carpets the premises now enjoy. 4 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541
The Tenancy Services website attributes a likely eight-year life to carpet. The carpet was almost six years old but had perhaps five ordinary years’ worth of fair wear and tear.
It is fair to apportion the amount the tenants are ordered to pay towards the excess at the rate of three-eighths. Wall holes
The tenants fixed many of the picture hanging holes they made, but not all of them.
The damage was caused intentionally. The tenants are liable for the cost of repair.
The landlord claims $90.00 for the cost of materials. I am not sure that there are invoices for the materials used for fixing the holes. However, $90.00 is a modest and fair amount to award for remediating the holes. Even if the cost of materials was less than $90.00, I am content that the landlord’s labour and inconvenience can be compensated for. Thus, the order does not exceed the landlord’s loss in the round for repairing the damage. Curtains and windowsill damage
The landlord claimed that windowsills and curtains were damaged due to the tenants not ventilating the premises adequately.
The photographs and the oral evidence do not satisfy me that the damage complained of is more than fair wear and tear.
There was not cogent evidence that the tenants did not adequately ventilate the rooms, and the modest level of damage is consistent with the tenants properly ventilating the premises. Washing line damage
The folding clothesline was dented in from the side. Perhaps someone tall carrying something heavy blundered into it.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants could not explain how the damage occurred. It is likely a taller person caused the damage careless when they were not looking where they were going.
The clothesline likely dates from the house’s construction. It is still usable. The landlord provided a Bunnings Warehouse price for a new clothesline of $159.00. She seeks only a modest $50.00 amount, presumably to account for depreciation and betterment.
The placement of the clothesline meant that a taller person was liable to blunder into it. I accept the tenants evidence that they do not know how the damage occurred. It is the placement of the clothesline rather than any carelessness by the tenants that likely led to the damage.
Therefore, this claim is not allowed. Rubbish bin drawer
A rubbish bin drawer shows signs of water damage.
I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Torn curtains
The living room curtain backings have multiple tears.
The landlord and her senior property manager believe the tears were caused by the tenants’ unapproved kittens scratching them. The landlord saw the kittens when she had visited the premises. The tenants were not supposed to have pets and had not told the landlord about them. The landlord had the impression the tenants had intended to keep the kittens, but she made it clear they could keep pets in the premises.
The tenants say that they were looking after a couple of stray kittens for a few days but did not let them roam unsupervised. That is credible given, against their own interest, the tenants frankly conceded they let their child roam and cause the damage to the carpets.
The tenants believe mice caused the tears. That is not as probably as kitten claws being the cause, but nonetheless I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that caused the damage either. It is also quite probable, the damage was caused by fair wear and tear.
The cause of the damage remains a mystery.
I am not persuaded that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Even if it were, I would find the tenants were not careless in respect to the damage.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Each party having enjoyed a degree of success, no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee. Non-publication
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 6
The tenants will likely be having to apply for residential tenancies for some time yet. Publication of their names in connection to a Tribunal claim is likely to make it harder for them to find good accommodation. The tenants made some mistakes, but they were good tenants. It is not in the public interest to mar their future tenancy prospects by publication. Non-publication is not detrimental to the landlord’s interests.
The Tribunal orders non-publication. The Tribunal must also direct that the guardians’ names be suppressed because publication of their names would lead to the identification of the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998194 — Property damage at 123C Pyes Pa Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998194 — Property damage at 123C Pyes Pa Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Are the tenants liable 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 tenants fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions