What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5039168?

The tribunal order states: Victoria Page must pay Precision Property Management Limited $492.00

How much money was awarded in case 5039168?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $270.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5039168?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5039168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11299595-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5039168?

The tribunal order states: Victoria Page must pay Precision Property Management Limited $492.00

How much money was awarded in case 5039168?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $270.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5039168?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5039168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11299595-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Gemini Place, Kawaha Point, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5039168 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5039168 — net $492.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$270.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$492.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$492.00

Order

Victoria Page must pay Precision Property Management Limited $492.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $280.00 (6527065-001) to Precision Property Management Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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 provided an invoice for $245.00 for cleaning. The landlord said that no further cleaning was carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of the next tenancy. The cleaning was needed to put the premises in a condition where they could be relet to new tenants. That is not the standard required of the tenant. The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which is generally accepted to be a lower standard than that required at the commencement of a tenancy. Some cleaning was required. I consider compensation of $175.00 to be reasonable to achieve the required standard.
The landlord claims $464.60 for garden work. The work can be divided into two sections. The tenant placed a substantial amount of wood chips over the garden. This has resulted in some plants being killed off. The landlord required most but not all the chips to be removed. I consider compensation of $300.00 to be reasonable for that work as it would have been a time consuming task. The balance of the photos provided by the landlord show gardens in a reasonable tidy condition which is the standard required of the tenant. The balance of the landlord claim for gardening 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 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 landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $650.00.
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 some of the curtains were substantially damaged by mould. The landlord could not say how old the curtains were, but the photos provided show that they were in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord claims $470.00 for replacements.
The tenant is to pay $270.00. 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 as best as I can, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As Precision Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5039168 — net $492.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$175.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$270.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$492.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$492.00

Order

Victoria Page must pay Precision Property Management Limited $492.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $280.00 (6527065-001) to Precision Property Management Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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 provided an invoice for $245.00 for cleaning. The landlord said that no further cleaning was carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of the next tenancy. The cleaning was needed to put the premises in a condition where they could be relet to new tenants. That is not the standard required of the tenant. The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which is generally accepted to be a lower standard than that required at the commencement of a tenancy. Some cleaning was required. I consider compensation of $175.00 to be reasonable to achieve the required standard.
The landlord claims $464.60 for garden work. The work can be divided into two sections. The tenant placed a substantial amount of wood chips over the garden. This has resulted in some plants being killed off. The landlord required most but not all the chips to be removed. I consider compensation of $300.00 to be reasonable for that work as it would have been a time consuming task. The balance of the photos provided by the landlord show gardens in a reasonable tidy condition which is the standard required of the tenant. The balance of the landlord claim for gardening 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 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 landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $650.00.
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 some of the curtains were substantially damaged by mould. The landlord could not say how old the curtains were, but the photos provided show that they were in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord claims $470.00 for replacements.
The tenant is to pay $270.00. 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 as best as I can, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As Precision Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5039168 — Cleanliness at 10 Gemini Place, Kawaha Point, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5039168 — Cleanliness at 10 Gemini Place, Kawaha Point, Rotorua 3010

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions