What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036388 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 5036388?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036388?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11492710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036388 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 5036388?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036388?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11492710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036388 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mikaella Mulholland must pay [The landlord/s] $2,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord had previously applied for work orders, however following the tenancy coming to an end on 4 February 2025, the landlord now seeks compensation for damage, rubbish removal and cleaning costs.
The landlord also seeks reimbursement for water rates unpaid by the tenant. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike 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.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord produced evidence that the tenant had left behind a large amount of furniture and other personal belongings, including clothes, rubbish and children’s toys. Photos produced showed items left in almost every room of the house. The kitchen was left with dirty dishes in the sink and food in the oven.
The landlord produced an invoice for $1,190.25 from professional cleaners dated 21 February 2025. The invoice records that cleaning of the premises took 19 hours (the landlord said two people spent one day cleaning) and included cleaning of the carpets.
Videos taken by the landlord on 4 February 2025 show the carpet was left with several stains and marks and the house was generally unclean. The landlord said the clean on or about 21 February 2025 took place after other repairs, including plastering and sanding, had been completed. This meant some of the dust in the premises was caused by the tradespersons, and not the tenant. For that reason, and because a tenant is not required to leave the premises in immaculate condition (as a professional cleaner might) but only in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, I reduce the total amount ordered by one- third. Accordingly, I order the tenant pay the landlord $793.50 in compensation for cleaning costs incurred.
The landlord also produced an invoice for $1,364.48 for rubbish collection and disposal dated 17 February 2025. The invoice records that two persons spent 5 hours removed 930kg of rubbish from the home. Photos produced by the landlord showed a large amount of rubbish and personal belongings, such as bags of clothes and children’s toys, were left in the home.
Accordingly, I order the tenant pay the landlord $1,364.48 in compensation for removal of rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken exterior door handle in storage area, holes in doors and some damage to walls in the lounge, master bedroom and second bedroom, damage to sliding/bi-fold door in second living area. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Broken exterior door handle in storage area
The landlord produced photographs which show the exterior door handle in the storage area was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced an invoice from Mitre 10 for the purchase of a replacement door handle, totalling $47.48. The landlord said he put the new handle on the entrance door, and moved the entrance door handle to the storage area. The landlord did the work himself.
The landlord has proved the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. Holes in doors and some damage to walls in the lounge, master bedroom and second bedroom
The landlord said the tenant caused damage to three internal doors: the bathroom door, and the doors to the main bedroom and second bedroom. The landlord produced videos taken on 4 February 2025 and photos taken the same day that show all three doors had been damaged. Some of the doors had had holes made in them and had been patched with plaster but the damage was not remedied to a satisfactory state. The landlord said professional repairs were carried out on all three doors by the same tradesperson who did the plastering and painting. He said repairs were cheaper than replacing each door, which he estimated would have cost approximately $750 per door.
The landlord also said the tenant caused damage to the walls in the main bedroom, second bedroom and lounge, all of which required plastering, sanding and re-painting. The landlord produced an invoice from Nresh Group for a total of $4,094.00. The invoice was not itemised and does not separate the cost of repairs to the doors, as distinct from plastering and painting costs.
The evidence of the damage to walls was not satisfactory. The landlord provided some photo evidence of a fixture which was screwed to the wall of bedroom two, however the landlord said a similar fixture was screwed to the ceiling of bedroom two but had no photographic or video evidence. In the lounge, the landlord said dents and marks were caused by a couch being pushed into or against a wall. The video produced showed some marks at the same height as the top of the couch but did not show dents in the walls. I am not satisfied the marks on the walls in the lounge are more than fair wear and tear caused by the couch.
As for the master bedroom, the landlord produced photos taken on 4 February 2025 of a wallpapered wall with some of the wallpaper lifting. A photo taken at the start of the tenancy shows that before the tenant moved in, the wallpaper was intact albeit it was lifting slightly where each strip of wallpaper joined. The landlord said the wallpaper was installed new in approximately 2018. Insurance not claimed
The landlord said he had made enquires with his insurer, but that given he has an excess of $1,000 and each item of damage would be a separate claim (including each door as a separate claim), there was no benefit to making an insurance claim. Order for compensation for damage
I am satisfied the landlord is entitled to full compensation for the repair of the doors. I award the landlord $500 for each of the three doors damaged (total $1,500).
I also award the landlord $500 towards the repairs needed to the walls in the lounge and two bedrooms. The reduced amount awarded for the repairs to the walls takes into account some damage was proven (where a fixture was screwed into the wall in the second bedroom and some damage to the walls in the bedrooms) but some of the alleged damage was not proven (damage to the ceiling in the second bedroom) and some was fair wear and tear for which the tenant is not liable (marks to the walls in the lounge, lifting wallpaper).
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.
The amounts ordered are proved. I note that the total awarded for damage ($2,000) is less than four weeks’ rent ($3,000), which is the maximum available under s 49B(3)(a)(ii).

How much is owed in water rates?

The tenancy ended on 4 February 2025. The landlord filed correspondence from a debt collection agency dated 24 February 2025 which confirmed the landlord had paid $405.73 in satisfaction of a debt pursued by Watercare Services in relation to the premises.
The landlord did not produce invoices from Watercare showing the tenant’s monthly consumption of water and wastewater, nor invoices from the landlord to the tenant to show he had sought payment from the tenant. The landlord said the water rates accrued over the entire tenancy, however he did not produce any record to support that submission. The landlord said the tenant did pay some small amounts towards the water rates but the landlord did not keep a record of those payments and was unable to say how much the tenant had paid.
The landlord has not established his claim. The evidence provided does not clearly show the amount owed by the tenant, or the period over which the water rates accrued. Without evidence of the small amounts paid by the tenant I am not satisfied, to the requisite standard, of the amount outstanding in water rates.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for unpaid water rates is dismissed.

Is the landlord entitled to name suppression?

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was substantially successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036388 — Cleanliness

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036388 — Cleanliness

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?

How much is owed in water rates?

Is the landlord entitled to name suppression?

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?

How much is owed in water rates?

Is the landlord entitled to name suppression?