What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021389 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 5021389?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $129.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,691.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,188.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021389?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11548170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021389 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 5021389?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $129.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,691.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,188.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021389?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11548170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021389 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021389 — net $3,396.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 September 2024	$1,691.43	Rent arrears to 24 September 2024
Water rates to end of tenancy	$1,188.45	Water rates to end of tenancy
Rubbish removal (skip bin	$360.00	Rubbish removal (skip bin
Curtain replacement (depreciated	$129.50	Curtain replacement (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,396.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,396.38

Both parties attended the hearing.

This was a longstanding tenancy that began in 2019 through a third-party agency. A new rental agreement was signed in 2021 with the landlords directly.

[Tenant 2] explained that he had left the tenancy some years ago and had thought that he had been removed as a tenant. He was surprised to be included as a party to the landlord’s application.

[Tenant 1] agreed that [Tenant 2] had left the tenancy and that she was responsible for payment of any orders made today.

The landlords said that they had not agreed to release [Tenant 2] from the tenancy. They did not agree to remove him from this application.

As [Tenant 2] has not been released from the tenancy I am unable to remove him as a party without the consent of the landlord. He will remain as a party to this proceeding. The liability as between himself and [Tenant 1] is a separate issue. The landlord’s claim

The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Onus and evidence

This is a claim by the landlord and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 September 2024.

[Tenant 1] agreed with the landlords’ claim that rent of $1,691.43 and water rates of $1,188.45 were owing to the end of the tenancy.

I therefore make orders for rent and water rates by consent.

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.

Tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, but they do not need to leave the property in immaculate condition ready for a new tenant to move into.

The landlords said that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that there was a large number of items left behind. They claimed for the cost of a skip bin in the amount of $360.00 (having arranged for other items to be picked up by scrap metal dealers) and for the cost of cleaning supplies ($90.04) as they did the cleaning themselves.

[Tenant 1] agreed that she left various items behind and accepted that landlord’s claim of $360.00 for hiring a skip bin. The claim for rubbish removal is therefore made by consent.

[Tenant 1] did not accept the landlord’s claim regarding cleaning. She said that she arranged for a professional exit clean which included the oven and the toilet.

The landlords only provided a small number of photos from the end of the tenancy, and having reviewed those photos I am not satisfied that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.

I note further that this was a tenancy of some six years, and it is to be expected that some additional cleaning would be required following the end of the tenancy.

The claim for cleaning is not proved and 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 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. Glass Hobs

The landlords said that the glass-top hobs were cracked during the tenancy and that they had agreed that the cost of replacement would come out of the tenant’s bond (although the bond was released to pay rent arrears so there is no longer a bond held).

The landlords produced an invoice from Bunnings in the amount of $331.54 for the glass top. They said that they hadn’t claimed for the cost of installation by an electrician.

[Tenant 1] accepted the landlords’ claim. The order is made by consent. Curtains

The landlords said that they renovated the property and installed new curtains at the start of the tenancy.

The landlords said that the tenants removed the curtains in the bedrooms and lounge and installed white wooden blinds, but that when they went to rehang the curtains after the tenancy they found that they had been pulled and damaged, possibly by a dog or a cat. They said that they removed the tenant’s blinds and installed new curtains and blinds.

The landlords seek the sum of $518.00 being the cost of replacement curtains from Spotlight.

[Tenant 1] agreed that she had installed blinds as they were more private than curtains. She was surprised that the landlord had removed them. She said that she would accept the landlord’s claim in respect of the curtains on a depreciated basis. The IRD depreciation schedules IR265 as at October 2023 (IRD Schedules) estimate the life of curtains to be 8 years. As the tenancy was for six years in total I order the sum of $129.50 for the curtains.

The order in respect of the curtains is made by consent. Dishwasher filter

The landlords said that the dishwasher filter had been removed and was found in poor condition and had to be replaced. They seek the replacement cost of $50.71.

Ms Mcdonald accepted that it had been removed and was in poor condition, however I do not consider that it is appropriate to order any amount for a replacement filter. The IRD Schedules estimate that dishwasher has an estimated useful life of 6.66 years. I was not given any information as to the age of the dishwasher but in my view, even if new at the start of the tenancy, dishwasher parts are unlikely to have any real value at this stage.

I therefore make no order in respect of the dishwasher filter. Flooring

The landlords said that they installed laminate flooring in the lounge, hallway and two bedrooms prior to the start of the tenancy.

The produced photos from the end of the tenancy showing that the laminate has become swollen and has lifted slightly round the edges in some places in the lounge and in both bedrooms.

The landlords obtained a quote for repair and explained that the person who attended said that they had not seen this issue with laminate flooring before and that it may have been caused by excess water left on the floor. This observation was not included in the quote and this person was not available to give evidence.

The landlords said that they have claimed on their insurance, the claim had been accepted, and that they seek recovery of the excess paid ($1,000).

The tenants said that the flooring had not been well installed as there were gaps by the skirting, and that the deterioration was a gradual process over years that they raised with the landlord during inspections. The tenants said that they thought the issue was more likely to have to do with the product not being installed properly. They denied leaving water on the floor.

I have reviewed the photos and the invoice and am not satisfied that the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The damage gradually happened over time and the fact that it happened across all rooms suggests to me that the damage is more likely to be due to wear and tear (whether because of the particular laminate flooring used or issues with installation) than carelessness by the tenants. Laminate flooring should be able to withstand normal mopping and cleaning. There is no evidence that the tenants left water on the floor.

The claim for replacement flooring is not proved and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

I refunded the filing fee to the landlord.

The landlords did not seek an order for name suppression.

Both tenants attended the hearing today, and all orders have been made by consent. The other claims (cleaning and flooring) were not proven.

I therefore see no public interest in publication and exercise my discretion to suppress the tenants’ names. The tenants’ names will appear on this copy of the decision but will be redacted from the published copy.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021389 — net $3,396.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 September 2024	$1,691.43	Rent arrears to 24 September 2024
Water rates to end of tenancy	$1,188.45	Water rates to end of tenancy
Rubbish removal (skip bin	$360.00	Rubbish removal (skip bin
Curtain replacement (depreciated	$129.50	Curtain replacement (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,396.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,396.38