What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5012948?

The tribunal order states: HWAJIIN (JENNY) SONG and Huadong(Jerry) Geng to pay CRAIG DOUGLAS

How much money was awarded in case 5012948?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Wall - Mediation: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5012948?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5012948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11130265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5012948?

The tribunal order states: HWAJIIN (JENNY) SONG and Huadong(Jerry) Geng to pay CRAIG DOUGLAS

How much money was awarded in case 5012948?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Wall - Mediation: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5012948?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5012948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11130265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 71 MacMaster Street, Richmond, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5012948 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5012948 — net $445.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Wall - mediation	$50.00	ended mediation on 20 September 2024 and agreed to an order that the tenant pay $50.00 to the landlord for repairs and painting of a wall. That order is includ…
Rubbish removal	$65.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	to repair the damage. The claim is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $60.00 for repairs.
Curtains	$40.00	Curtains
Net award	$445.50
Bond	$1,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$445.50

Order

HWAJIIN (JENNY) SONG and Huadong(Jerry) Geng to pay CRAIG DOUGLAS BOYLAN $445.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (5255481-007) immediately apportioned as follows: CRAIG DOUGLAS BOYLAN: $445.50 HWAJIIN (JENNY) SONG and Huadong(Jerry) Geng: $1,034.50

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 26 November 2024.
The tenant has applied for release of their bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In making a decision, I am not required to make a finding on who is telling the truth. The parties should consider a finding adverse to them to be an order relating to the outcome being more likely than not. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and invoices. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, tip fees, rubbish removal and cleaning products. The tip fees are $5.50.
The tenant accepted that rubbish had been left behind.
The time taken to clear the rubbish and transfer it to the transfer station is not clearly set out by the landlord. I consider time for rubbish removal and travel to the transfer station of 2 hours at $30.00 per hour to be reasonable. Total compensation for rubbish removal of $65.50 is to be paid by the tenant.
The balance of the landlord cleaning claims for cleaning are disputed by the tenant. The burden of proving that the claims are more likely than not, falls on the landlord. Usually in these circumstances the Tribunal would expect to see photographs or some other form of supporting evidence. The claim is dismissed as the landlord has not proven the claim to the required civil standard.
The landlord seeks compensation of $230.00 for carpet cleaning. This was accepted as reasonable by the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $230.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that they dryer was in working condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The dryer did not work when the new tenants moved in. The dryer was approximately 5 years old. I accept that they landlord has proven that the dryer was damaged during the course of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide evidence as to the cause of the damage. It may have been as a result of fair wear and tear. The IRD Depreciation schedules suggests that a dryer at a rental property has an estimated life of
6 years. I am not persuaded that the dryer was not damaged by fair wear and tear. If I am wrong in that, then I find that the depreciated value of the dryer was minimal.
The landlord installed an oven top early in the tenancy. The new tenants have discovered that it was not operational. Further investigation discovered that there was a faulty part and the replacement was covered under warranty. There having been no loss to the landlord the claim is dismissed.
The landlord made reference to s.40(1)(d) RTA which requires a tenant to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of damage to notify the landlord or of the need for repair. Section 40 RTA does not allow for exemplary damages for a failure by the tenant to do so. A tenant may become liable for consequential damage where the damage has occurred due to a failure to inform the landlord of the damage or need for repair. That is not the case in this application.
The landlord says that curtains in the lounge have been ripped and seeks $40.00 in compensation. The tenant agreed with the claim.
The parties attended mediation on 20 September 2024 and agreed to an order that the tenant pay $50.00 to the landlord for repairs and painting of a wall. That order is included in this order for ease of reference.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the lawns. The parties accept that whilst removing belongings form the tenancy a car was parked on the grass which may have caused damage. The damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord says that it took 2 hours at $30.00 per hour to repair the damage. The claim is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $60.00 for repairs.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful. The applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5012948 — net $445.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Wall - mediation	$50.00	ended mediation on 20 September 2024 and agreed to an order that the tenant pay $50.00 to the landlord for repairs and painting of a wall. That order is includ…
Rubbish removal	$65.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	to repair the damage. The claim is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $60.00 for repairs.
Curtains	$40.00	Curtains
Net award	$445.50
Bond	$1,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$445.50

Order

HWAJIIN (JENNY) SONG and Huadong(Jerry) Geng to pay CRAIG DOUGLAS BOYLAN $445.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 (5255481-007) immediately apportioned as follows: CRAIG DOUGLAS BOYLAN: $445.50 HWAJIIN (JENNY) SONG and Huadong(Jerry) Geng: $1,034.50

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 26 November 2024.
The tenant has applied for release of their bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In making a decision, I am not required to make a finding on who is telling the truth. The parties should consider a finding adverse to them to be an order relating to the outcome being more likely than not. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and invoices. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, tip fees, rubbish removal and cleaning products. The tip fees are $5.50.
The tenant accepted that rubbish had been left behind.
The time taken to clear the rubbish and transfer it to the transfer station is not clearly set out by the landlord. I consider time for rubbish removal and travel to the transfer station of 2 hours at $30.00 per hour to be reasonable. Total compensation for rubbish removal of $65.50 is to be paid by the tenant.
The balance of the landlord cleaning claims for cleaning are disputed by the tenant. The burden of proving that the claims are more likely than not, falls on the landlord. Usually in these circumstances the Tribunal would expect to see photographs or some other form of supporting evidence. The claim is dismissed as the landlord has not proven the claim to the required civil standard.
The landlord seeks compensation of $230.00 for carpet cleaning. This was accepted as reasonable by the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $230.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that they dryer was in working condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The dryer did not work when the new tenants moved in. The dryer was approximately 5 years old. I accept that they landlord has proven that the dryer was damaged during the course of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide evidence as to the cause of the damage. It may have been as a result of fair wear and tear. The IRD Depreciation schedules suggests that a dryer at a rental property has an estimated life of
6 years. I am not persuaded that the dryer was not damaged by fair wear and tear. If I am wrong in that, then I find that the depreciated value of the dryer was minimal.
The landlord installed an oven top early in the tenancy. The new tenants have discovered that it was not operational. Further investigation discovered that there was a faulty part and the replacement was covered under warranty. There having been no loss to the landlord the claim is dismissed.
The landlord made reference to s.40(1)(d) RTA which requires a tenant to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of damage to notify the landlord or of the need for repair. Section 40 RTA does not allow for exemplary damages for a failure by the tenant to do so. A tenant may become liable for consequential damage where the damage has occurred due to a failure to inform the landlord of the damage or need for repair. That is not the case in this application.
The landlord says that curtains in the lounge have been ripped and seeks $40.00 in compensation. The tenant agreed with the claim.
The parties attended mediation on 20 September 2024 and agreed to an order that the tenant pay $50.00 to the landlord for repairs and painting of a wall. That order is included in this order for ease of reference.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the lawns. The parties accept that whilst removing belongings form the tenancy a car was parked on the grass which may have caused damage. The damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord says that it took 2 hours at $30.00 per hour to repair the damage. The claim is reasonable and the tenant is ordered to pay $60.00 for repairs.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful. The applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5012948 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 71 MacMaster Street, Richmond,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5012948 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 71 MacMaster Street, Richmond,

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