How much money was awarded in case 5051389?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Kitchen/Lounge Painting: $460.00 awarded to landlord; To Shutters: $290.50 awarded to landlord; To Waste Disposal Unit: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $5.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051389?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11388884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5051389?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Kitchen/Lounge Painting: $460.00 awarded to landlord; To Shutters: $290.50 awarded to landlord; To Waste Disposal Unit: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $5.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051389?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11388884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5051389 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051389 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 5051389 — net $1,020.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$5.87	Water rates to end of tenancy
Repairs: to Shutters	$290.50	Repairs: to Shutters
Repairs: to Waste disposal unit	$120.00	Repairs: to Waste disposal unit
Carpet Cleaning: half invoice	$143.75	Carpet Cleaning: half invoice
Kitchen/Lounge Painting	$460.00	Kitchen/Lounge Painting
Net award	$1,020.12
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,020.12

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

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,020.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The tenant claim for reimbursement of garden waste removal is withdrawn at the tenants’ request. The remainder of both parties’ claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,020.12 [The tenant/s]: $2,419.88

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.

This tenancy commenced in February 2021 and ended in October 2024.

The premises are now sold.

The landlord has applied for final water owed, compensation for cleaning and damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have cross applied for bond refund and compensation by way of reimbursement for maintenance work done at the property. The tenant also sought reimbursement for garden waste removal following a garden tidy up at the end of the tenancy but withdrew this claim at the hearing.

By consent the following amounts for the tenants to pay from the bond are ordered: (a) $5.87 for the final water (b) $290.50 for shutter repairs (c) $120.00 for waste disposal unit repair

The remaining claims will be considered in this decision.

In general the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not”, or “more likely than not”. Landlord claims

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in two respects; the oven was not left reasonably clean and tidy and the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy. In support of these claims the landlord provided before and after photographs including an undated close up photo of the oven and copies of invoices for the oven clean in the sum of $85.00 and for the carpet clean in the sum of $287.00.

The tenants disputed the claims and provided an exit photograph of the kitchen showing it to look reasonably clean and tidy but no close up photographs of the oven and some photographs showing a small amount of carpet in some rooms. The tenants questioned the date of the close up photo provided by the landlord. The tenants stated that they had a regular cleaner and paid extra for an exit clean at the end of the tenancy. A copy of bank payments referencing to a cleaner were provided.

It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. A tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant or for sale. What is required is that premises including the kitchen and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of both parties.

I find that the majority of the inside of these premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. Although the oven may have needed more cleaning to meet the landlord’s standards it appears to have had some cleaning and I am not satisfied that this renders the premises not reasonably clean and tidy.

The carpet, however, showed marks throughout from normal use. The tenants stated that they had used a Rug Doctor from the supermarket, however, having considered the evidence I find that some further cleaning was required to leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy and order the tenants to pay half of the cost of the professional clean in the sum of $143.75.

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.

If tenants make minor changes at the premises on or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:

Damage to paintwork (a)The landlord claimed there was damage to the paintwork in the kitchen and dining room and the tenants repaired this but the paint did not match which required a repaint. (b)The landlord provided photographs of the paintwork showing visible paint patches on the kitchen ceiling and on the lounge walls. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice from Premier Decorators in the sum of $920.00. (c)The tenants accepted that there had been damage to the paintwork. The wall damage was a result of removing a television that they had installed on the wall and the kitchen damage due to some tape on the ceiling. (d)Both parties referred to a letter from the landlord to the tenants dated 2 October 2024 setting out the end of tenancy repairs which included reference to the kitchen and lounge ceiling and walls. In the letter the landlord stated “We would like the repairs to be of a professional standard with no further damages”. (e)The tenants stated that they arranged for a painter to repair the damages and provided an invoice for the work done. They stated that they purchased what they understood to be the correct paint for the painter and claimed that the landlord should have provided them with the name of the paint. (f)The landlord stated that he had advised there was paint in the garage. (g)Having considered the evidence I find that the tenants are responsible for repairs to the paintwork and for reinstating the wall in the lounge after removal of the television. It is unfortunate that the painter did not assist in matching the paint colour as the end result left obvious paint patching on the kitchen ceiling and lounge walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. (h)In calculating the amount ordered I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The invoice records painting the ceilings and walls in both kitchen and lounge. The paintwork was 7 years old at the end of the tenancy and the longest lifespan of paintwork in tenancies is generally 14 years. Accordingly, I have depreciated the amount ordered by 50 percent and order the tenants to pay the sum of $460.00 towards the painting. (i)The amount ordered is less than the landlord’s insurance excess.

Chips to the benchtops in the kitchen. (a)The landlord claimed that the tenants damaged the kitchen benchtops as there were two chips on the edge of the bench top near the stove and two chips on the edge of the benchtop near the sink. The landlord sought payment of $316.25 for repairs. The photographs of the chips showed them to be small with one slightly larger. The tenant stated that the larger chip was caused by the painter picking at it. The tenants denied any knowledge of how the chips were caused and claimed that they were wear and tear. (b)Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the chips were more than fair wear and tear in the normal use of the kitchen. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Tenant claims

[The tenant/s]The tenants seek refund of the bond. The bond belongs to the tenants and the balance of the bond will be refunded to the tenants after deduction of the amounts ordered to the landlord in order 2.

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and seek reimbursement of: (a)$17.76 for purchase of a tap washer (b)$106.17 for pest control (c)$232.88 for drawer repair and plumbing

Under section 45 (1) (b) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair

Under section 45 (1) (d) a landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i)the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so;

The tenants did not provide evidence that they notified or attempt to notify the landlord of the maintenance issues before incurring the costs claimed, therefore, the requirements of section 45(1)(d) are not met. The claims are dismissed. Filing fee/Suppression

As both parties have had some success in these proceedings, I make no order regarding reimbursing the filing fee to either party and suppress both party details in the order. See sections 102(4) and 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5051389 — net $1,020.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$5.87	Water rates to end of tenancy
Repairs: to Shutters	$290.50	Repairs: to Shutters
Repairs: to Waste disposal unit	$120.00	Repairs: to Waste disposal unit
Carpet Cleaning: half invoice	$143.75	Carpet Cleaning: half invoice
Kitchen/Lounge Painting	$460.00	Kitchen/Lounge Painting
Net award	$1,020.12
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,020.12

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

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,020.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The tenant claim for reimbursement of garden waste removal is withdrawn at the tenants’ request. The remainder of both parties’ claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,020.12 [The tenant/s]: $2,419.88

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.

This tenancy commenced in February 2021 and ended in October 2024.

The premises are now sold.

The landlord has applied for final water owed, compensation for cleaning and damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

By consent the following amounts for the tenants to pay from the bond are ordered: (a) $5.87 for the final water (b) $290.50 for shutter repairs (c) $120.00 for waste disposal unit repair

The remaining claims will be considered in this decision.

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

I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of both parties.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:

Under section 45 (1) (b) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051389 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051389 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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