How much money was awarded in case 5038568?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; - Ensuite Wall: $230.00 awarded to landlord; - Garage Walls: $172.50 awarded to landlord; - Premises Walls: $460.00 awarded to landlord; - Security Latches: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5038568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11225526-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5038568?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; - Ensuite Wall: $230.00 awarded to landlord; - Garage Walls: $172.50 awarded to landlord; - Premises Walls: $460.00 awarded to landlord; - Security Latches: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5038568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11225526-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 3 Ballin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5038568 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5038568 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5038568 — net $1,273.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$149.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: - Oven	$69.00	Cleaning: - Oven
Cleaning: - Rangehoof	$46.00	Cleaning: - Rangehoof
Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding
Repairs: - Security latches	$69.00	Repairs: - Security latches
Repairs: - Ensuite wall	$230.00	Repairs: - Ensuite wall
Repairs: - Garage walls	$172.50	Repairs: - Garage walls
Repairs: - Premises walls	$460.00	Repairs: - Premises walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,273.00
Bond	$3,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,273.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’ name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $1,273.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited: $1,273.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,447.00

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attend the hearing by video call.

This is a cross application.

The tenants seek a refund of the bond.

The landlord seeks compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 9 February 2021 and ended on 22 September 2024 Relevant legal provisions

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 and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 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.

The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this matter with these provisions in mind. See section 85 of the RTA.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the 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 RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.

Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 2 . Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 3 . Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4

The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).

If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.

The premises was new at the commencement of the tenancy.

The tenant did not return the key for the letter box. The amount ordered to replace the letterbox key is $149.50.

The landlord said the oven and rangehood required cleaning. This was not disputed by the tenants. The amount ordered for oven cleaning is $60 + GST = $69.00. The amount ordered for cleaning the rangehood is - $40 + GST = $46.00.

The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout at the final inspection. The landlord provided an outgoing inspection report and referred to some areas that needed to be wiped clean or dusted.

The tenants say they did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

I have reviewed the evidence provided by the parties and consider the tenants did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and the cleaning arranged by the landlord went beyond that of a reasonably clean and tidy standard, to make the property ready for the next tenants. The claim for general cleaning is dismissed.

The landlord seeks compensation for weeding. The outgoing inspection report shows that a small amount of weeding was required and the claim of $50 fairly reflects this. The amount ordered for weeding is $50.00.

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 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 landlord’s insurance excess of $550.00 and 1-weeks rent is $980.00.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The security latches in the master bedroom were removed and not replaced. The tenant’s consented to replacing the security latches and I make an order by consent for $60 + GST- $69.00 b. The ensuite wall was damaged and required patching, sanding, and painting. The repairers invoice says the tenants had poorly attempted to repair the damage. The tenants consented to the repair of the ensuite wall. I make an order for the full amount claimed of $200 + GST = $230.00. c. The garage had numerous hooks on the wall and the wall was damaged when the landlord removed the hooks. The landlord said while some hooks on a wall is acceptable, the number of hooks was excessive and was used to hold up an extension cord. The photographs provided do show this. In addition, I consider it likely the landlords could not remove the hooks without damaging the walls, as often the adhesive deteriorates over time in the type of hooks the tenants used. I consider this likely to be careless damage and make an order for the full amount claimed of $150 + GST = $172.50 d. The landlord said there was numerous marks, chips, hook damage and holes on the walls throughout all levels of the premises. The invoice does not specifically describe all the damage repaired in the premises. The tenant acknowledged that one windowsill was damaged by the bed placed next to it and there was some damage by a mover. The outgoing report shows one other hole in the stairway wall that was unexplained. I consider some of the damage is likely to have been caused by the careless actions of the tenants or person permitted in the premises by the tenants. However, allowing for some of the marks referred to in the invoice were likely to be fair wear and tear I make an order for compensation for the amount of $400 plus GST - $460.00

The damage is more than fair wear and tear (excluding some marks I have referred to above), and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered do not exceed the statutory limit.

The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claim’s - Bond

The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for a refund of the bond.

Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. The tenant’s claim is dismissed however the balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenant. Filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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 section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The landlord confirmed that name suppression was not sought.

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenant sought name suppression and having regards to the interest of the parties I consider that appropriate, particularly as several claims have been ordered with consent of the tenant and the bond sufficiently covers the amounts ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5038568 — net $1,273.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$149.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: - Oven	$69.00	Cleaning: - Oven
Cleaning: - Rangehoof	$46.00	Cleaning: - Rangehoof
Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding
Repairs: - Security latches	$69.00	Repairs: - Security latches
Repairs: - Ensuite wall	$230.00	Repairs: - Ensuite wall
Repairs: - Garage walls	$172.50	Repairs: - Garage walls
Repairs: - Premises walls	$460.00	Repairs: - Premises walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,273.00
Bond	$3,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,273.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’ name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $1,273.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited: $1,273.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,447.00

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attend the hearing by video call.

This is a cross application.

The tenants seek a refund of the bond.

The landlord seeks compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 9 February 2021 and ended on 22 September 2024 Relevant legal provisions

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.

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

The premises was new at the commencement of the tenancy.

The tenant did not return the key for the letter box. The amount ordered to replace the letterbox key is $149.50.

The tenants say they did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord’s insurance excess of $550.00 and 1-weeks rent is $980.00.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear (excluding some marks I have referred to above), and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered do not exceed the statutory limit.

The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claim’s - Bond

The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for a refund of the bond.

Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. The tenant’s claim is dismissed however the balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenant. Filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression

The landlord confirmed that name suppression was not sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038568 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 3 Ballin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038568 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 3 Ballin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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