What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034928 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 5034928?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Remedial Painting: $866.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $55.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395024-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034928 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 5034928?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Remedial Painting: $866.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $55.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395024-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034928 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034928 — net $1,017.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$55.75	Water rates
Clean one pair of curtains (2	$69.00	Clean one pair of curtains (2
Remedial painting	$866.00	Remedial painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,017.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,017.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,017.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely (the landlord by its representative).
The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disagrees with some of the claims. She agrees that the final water bill is owing.

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property.
A tenant is liable for any intentional or careless damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When working out compensation, 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Decisions on the claims
Cleaning: the photographs from the final inspection satisfy me that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The floors were vacuumed, bathrooms and toilets cleaned, kitchen and laundry cupboards, benches, and appliances wiped. A landlord may choose to clean the premises to a higher standard ready for an open home or in preparation for the next tenants but that is at their own cost and effort as part of their tenancy business. I dismiss the claim for cleaning.
Carpet cleaning: there is no evidence of marks or stains on the carpet or any other reason why carpet shampooing might be needed. There is no legal obligation on a tenant to pay for carpet cleaning unless it is needed such as if it has been a long tenancy or there are stains or smells. This was a relatively short tenancy of less than a year. I dismiss the claim for carpet cleaning.
Curtain cleaning: the tenant accepts there was one blue ink stain on a curtain in the lounge (from a washable ink marker). There is one photo of a drink splash (or similar) on one other lounge curtain. I award $69.00 which is the cost to remove, wash and rehang one pair of curtains. I dismiss the claim to wash the other four curtains as no other marks or staining were proven. Remedial painting:
The tenant accepts that she “patch-painted” many of the walls in the house to try to fix areas where the original paint was damaged. The landlord said she did ask permission first and he agreed to this if she used matching paint. She took a sample to a hardware store but unfortunately the paint she was sold did not exactly match and her patches were visible when they dried.
The tenant said that the damage she was trying to fix was where the paint surface was damaged when she removed “command hooks” (adhesive hooks intended to be able to be removed without damage), where the existing stickers were removed, in her son’s bedroom from attaching LED lights, and from bumps or scuffs from furniture and high use areas.
The landlord seeks compensation for the $3,500.00 cost to repaint the living areas, kitchen, hallway and stairs, and four bedrooms of the house.
My decisions are:- a. The house was built in 2021 so was newly painted at that time. b. The house had been rented out for two years before this tenancy. c. There were decorative stickers left from previous tenants on two walls in one bedroom and on the dining room wall at the start of this tenancy. The tenant said some of these were coming unstuck. d. There were existing picture hooks and nails in some places where pictures, mirrors and other fixtures had been attached by the previous tenants. Some of the fixtures were left on the walls. e. No other damage or issues with the walls were recorded at the start of the tenancy. f. The tenant said that the paint surface in the house seemed to damage easily as paint would flake off or be scuffed when even soft furniture (like her bedhead and a computer chair) bumped against it. I have not taken this into account because there is no evidence to show this (for example, photographs taken before she patch-painted) and it was not raised during the tenancy. g. The tenant asked permission before patch-painting. I find the landlord should take some responsibility to advise her of the paint colour required. h. The photographs from the exit inspection prove that the mismatched paint caused many visible patches in most rooms in the house (excluding the bathrooms). i. I accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to repaint all rooms (except the bathrooms) because of the high number of mismatched areas. j. The tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the damage because although she did not intend to cause damage, she made the decision to do the patch-painting, so is responsible for it.
I calculate the compensation as follows:- a. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not caused the mismatched patches. This is that there would have been stickers on three walls, various hooks and nails in walls, and the wear and tear scuffs and marks to be expected after three years of normal residential living. b. The tenant supplied information suggesting that walls may need repainting every 3 to 5 years. I find this to be reasonable for tenancy premises. c. In other words, the landlord could expect to need to repaint the walls at its own cost within the next two years. d. A fair contribution by the tenant is one-third of the cost to repaint the house ($1,166.00) less an allowance for the existing damage from stickers on 3 walls ($300.00). This is $866.00.
I award the filing fee because the claim is partly successful.
I suppress the names of both parties. Both have been partly successful and there is a personal security issue affecting the tenant that persuades me her privacy outweighs any public interest. The landlord provided a positive reference to the tenant and agrees it is appropriate to suppress her name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034928 — net $1,017.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$55.75	Water rates
Clean one pair of curtains (2	$69.00	Clean one pair of curtains (2
Remedial painting	$866.00	Remedial painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,017.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,017.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,017.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely (the landlord by its representative).
The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disagrees with some of the claims. She agrees that the final water bill is owing.

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property.
A tenant is liable for any intentional or careless damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When working out compensation, 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Decisions on the claims
Cleaning: the photographs from the final inspection satisfy me that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The floors were vacuumed, bathrooms and toilets cleaned, kitchen and laundry cupboards, benches, and appliances wiped. A landlord may choose to clean the premises to a higher standard ready for an open home or in preparation for the next tenants but that is at their own cost and effort as part of their tenancy business. I dismiss the claim for cleaning.
Carpet cleaning: there is no evidence of marks or stains on the carpet or any other reason why carpet shampooing might be needed. There is no legal obligation on a tenant to pay for carpet cleaning unless it is needed such as if it has been a long tenancy or there are stains or smells. This was a relatively short tenancy of less than a year. I dismiss the claim for carpet cleaning.
Curtain cleaning: the tenant accepts there was one blue ink stain on a curtain in the lounge (from a washable ink marker). There is one photo of a drink splash (or similar) on one other lounge curtain. I award $69.00 which is the cost to remove, wash and rehang one pair of curtains. I dismiss the claim to wash the other four curtains as no other marks or staining were proven. Remedial painting:
The tenant accepts that she “patch-painted” many of the walls in the house to try to fix areas where the original paint was damaged. The landlord said she did ask permission first and he agreed to this if she used matching paint. She took a sample to a hardware store but unfortunately the paint she was sold did not exactly match and her patches were visible when they dried.
The tenant said that the damage she was trying to fix was where the paint surface was damaged when she removed “command hooks” (adhesive hooks intended to be able to be removed without damage), where the existing stickers were removed, in her son’s bedroom from attaching LED lights, and from bumps or scuffs from furniture and high use areas.
The landlord seeks compensation for the $3,500.00 cost to repaint the living areas, kitchen, hallway and stairs, and four bedrooms of the house.
My decisions are:- a. The house was built in 2021 so was newly painted at that time. b. The house had been rented out for two years before this tenancy. c. There were decorative stickers left from previous tenants on two walls in one bedroom and on the dining room wall at the start of this tenancy. The tenant said some of these were coming unstuck. d. There were existing picture hooks and nails in some places where pictures, mirrors and other fixtures had been attached by the previous tenants. Some of the fixtures were left on the walls. e. No other damage or issues with the walls were recorded at the start of the tenancy. f. The tenant said that the paint surface in the house seemed to damage easily as paint would flake off or be scuffed when even soft furniture (like her bedhead and a computer chair) bumped against it. I have not taken this into account because there is no evidence to show this (for example, photographs taken before she patch-painted) and it was not raised during the tenancy. g. The tenant asked permission before patch-painting. I find the landlord should take some responsibility to advise her of the paint colour required. h. The photographs from the exit inspection prove that the mismatched paint caused many visible patches in most rooms in the house (excluding the bathrooms). i. I accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to repaint all rooms (except the bathrooms) because of the high number of mismatched areas. j. The tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the damage because although she did not intend to cause damage, she made the decision to do the patch-painting, so is responsible for it.
I calculate the compensation as follows:- a. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not caused the mismatched patches. This is that there would have been stickers on three walls, various hooks and nails in walls, and the wear and tear scuffs and marks to be expected after three years of normal residential living. b. The tenant supplied information suggesting that walls may need repainting every 3 to 5 years. I find this to be reasonable for tenancy premises. c. In other words, the landlord could expect to need to repaint the walls at its own cost within the next two years. d. A fair contribution by the tenant is one-third of the cost to repaint the house ($1,166.00) less an allowance for the existing damage from stickers on 3 walls ($300.00). This is $866.00.
I award the filing fee because the claim is partly successful.
I suppress the names of both parties. Both have been partly successful and there is a personal security issue affecting the tenant that persuades me her privacy outweighs any public interest. The landlord provided a positive reference to the tenant and agrees it is appropriate to suppress her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034928 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034928 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the law on tenant obligations and damage claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions