What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056069 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 5056069?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $622.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $387.01 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall Tv Bracket: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Side Gate: $39.31 awarded to landlord; Wood Burner Handle: $35.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Tracks: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6.18 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436228-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056069 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 5056069?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $622.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $387.01 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall Tv Bracket: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Side Gate: $39.31 awarded to landlord; Wood Burner Handle: $35.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Tracks: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6.18 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056069?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436228-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056069 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056069 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056069. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$622.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$700.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$387.01	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Side gate	$39.31	Repairs: Side gate
Repairs: wood burner handle	$35.50	Repairs: wood burner handle
Replacement: bathplug	$6.18	Replacement: bathplug
Repairs: hole in wall tv bracket	$150.00	Repairs: hole in wall tv bracket
Replacement: rangehood filters	$30.00	Replacement: rangehood filters
Replacement: cuphooks	$10.00	Replacement: cuphooks
Replace furnishings: curtain tracks	$30.00	Replace furnishings: curtain tracks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5056069. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $622.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $387.01
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: Side gate

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
James Check must pay [The landlord/s] $2,667.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. The tenant did not answer calls placed to him. The tenant did not attend the prior hearing either, where the Tribunal had ordered termination.
The landlord applies for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord provided photographs and gave evidence regarding the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy when compared with its condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord said the property was immaculate at the outset of the tenancy, having been the landlord’s own residence.
On exit, the lawns were well overgrown with grass and weeds, there was a large amount of rubbish outside, and the condition of the inside was filthy. The landlord’s evidence was that the interior of the property was grubby, and the carpet covered in stains. The oven was filthy and there were marks on the walls.
The owner of the property spent hours cleaning it herself. She has not claimed recovery of all her time, only 16 hours at the rate of $37 per hour. I consider this amount of cleaning was reasonable in the circumstances, given the premises had only to be left in a reasonable condition, not an immaculate condition.
I am not prepared to allow all her claims for products, gloves spray bottles and the like. This would normally be included in the hourly rate and the amount claimed is excessive to what I could consider reasonable. I will order her $30 for those items.
I consider the carpet cleaning was required and the amount claimed of $280 was reasonable. This is to be paid by the tenant.
The landlord incurred the cost of $700 for removal of rubbish and I award the landlord this sum as I consider it to be reasonable. Likewise, I consider the amount claim for lawns, as ordered above is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys and a garage remote. The amounts claimed for these items are all ordered, as per above.

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.
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 side gate, wood burner handle, bath plug and weed killer
The tenant removed the stay for a side gate. The landlord repaired this by purchasing a cord and hooks. The cost was $39.31.
I am satisfied this should be paid by the tenant.
I am not prepared to allow the cost of the weed killer. I have no evidence as to the value of the weed killer she gave to the tenant at the outset of the tenancy. When she gave it to the tenant, she expected the tenant to use it. I have no evidence that he did not use it.
I am satisfied the bath plug has been removed and I will allow the landlord $6.18 for its replacement.
I will also allow the full amount claimed for the wood burner handle which was missing as I accept this had only just been replaced. Curtain tracks, cup hooks, rangehood filers / vents, damage to wall
I am satisfied the tenant has caused damages with respect to the above items.
The curtain tracks were bent. The cup hooks were removed, the rangehood filters were so filthy they had to be replaced and a hole in the wall had to be fixed after the tenant removed a tv wall bracket.
I will award $150 for the repairs to the wall as I consider this a reasonable amount for this sort of work.
With respect to the filters/ vents, the cup hook, the curtain tracks, I do not award the full amounts claimed as I need to take into account depreciation and betterment.
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.
I am not prepared to allow the cost of power for the cleaning as I consider that should be born by the landlord and is not reasonable.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has been successful and therefore should have name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056069. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$622.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$700.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$387.01	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Side gate	$39.31	Repairs: Side gate
Repairs: wood burner handle	$35.50	Repairs: wood burner handle
Replacement: bathplug	$6.18	Replacement: bathplug
Repairs: hole in wall tv bracket	$150.00	Repairs: hole in wall tv bracket
Replacement: rangehood filters	$30.00	Replacement: rangehood filters
Replacement: cuphooks	$10.00	Replacement: cuphooks
Replace furnishings: curtain tracks	$30.00	Replace furnishings: curtain tracks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5056069. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $622.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal

Amount: $700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $387.01
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: Side gate

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
James Check must pay [The landlord/s] $2,667.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. The tenant did not answer calls placed to him. The tenant did not attend the prior hearing either, where the Tribunal had ordered termination.
The landlord applies for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord provided photographs and gave evidence regarding the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy when compared with its condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord said the property was immaculate at the outset of the tenancy, having been the landlord’s own residence.
On exit, the lawns were well overgrown with grass and weeds, there was a large amount of rubbish outside, and the condition of the inside was filthy. The landlord’s evidence was that the interior of the property was grubby, and the carpet covered in stains. The oven was filthy and there were marks on the walls.
The owner of the property spent hours cleaning it herself. She has not claimed recovery of all her time, only 16 hours at the rate of $37 per hour. I consider this amount of cleaning was reasonable in the circumstances, given the premises had only to be left in a reasonable condition, not an immaculate condition.
I am not prepared to allow all her claims for products, gloves spray bottles and the like. This would normally be included in the hourly rate and the amount claimed is excessive to what I could consider reasonable. I will order her $30 for those items.
I consider the carpet cleaning was required and the amount claimed of $280 was reasonable. This is to be paid by the tenant.
The landlord incurred the cost of $700 for removal of rubbish and I award the landlord this sum as I consider it to be reasonable. Likewise, I consider the amount claim for lawns, as ordered above is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys and a garage remote. The amounts claimed for these items are all ordered, as per above.

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.
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 side gate, wood burner handle, bath plug and weed killer
The tenant removed the stay for a side gate. The landlord repaired this by purchasing a cord and hooks. The cost was $39.31.
I am satisfied this should be paid by the tenant.
I am not prepared to allow the cost of the weed killer. I have no evidence as to the value of the weed killer she gave to the tenant at the outset of the tenancy. When she gave it to the tenant, she expected the tenant to use it. I have no evidence that he did not use it.
I am satisfied the bath plug has been removed and I will allow the landlord $6.18 for its replacement.
I will also allow the full amount claimed for the wood burner handle which was missing as I accept this had only just been replaced. Curtain tracks, cup hooks, rangehood filers / vents, damage to wall
I am satisfied the tenant has caused damages with respect to the above items.
The curtain tracks were bent. The cup hooks were removed, the rangehood filters were so filthy they had to be replaced and a hole in the wall had to be fixed after the tenant removed a tv wall bracket.
I will award $150 for the repairs to the wall as I consider this a reasonable amount for this sort of work.
With respect to the filters/ vents, the cup hook, the curtain tracks, I do not award the full amounts claimed as I need to take into account depreciation and betterment.
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.
I am not prepared to allow the cost of power for the cleaning as I consider that should be born by the landlord and is not reasonable.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has been successful and therefore should have name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056069 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056069 — Cleanliness

At a glance

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

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