What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5064908?

The tribunal order states: Ajnil Prasad and Nikita Narayan must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5064908?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $356.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $278.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5064908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5064908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5064908?

The tribunal order states: Ajnil Prasad and Nikita Narayan must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5064908?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $356.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $278.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5064908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5064908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8D Bunnythorpe Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5064908 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5064908 — net $1,261.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$278.19	Water rates
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$356.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,261.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,261.19

Order

Ajnil Prasad and Nikita Narayan must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Mjf Investment Trust $1,261.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 October 2024. The tenant agreed with the amount claimed by the landlord. The tenant is to pay $278.19.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
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 photographs of the premises. The landlord agreed that the cleaning conducted and which the claim is made for, was cleaning to bring the premises to a standard where they could be re-let. That is not the standard required of the tenant. It is generally considered that reasonably clean and tidy is a lower standard and that a landlord should expect to carry out further cleaning at their own expense to bring it up to that superior standard. I have reviewed the photos and the invoice and consider that $400.00 would be a reasonable charge to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord claims $227.36. for lawn and garden work. The photos provided show quite a small lawn area. The work was carried out by the contractor on 18 October 2024. That is 11 days after the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that he had mown the lawns a week prior to the end of the tenancy. The key date is 7 October 2024 when the tenancy ended. I am not persuaded to the evidentiary standard required that the lawns and gardens were not reasonably tidy on 7 October 2024 and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks $379.50 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided photos with marks from felt markers. The tenant accepted responsibility for work needed to remove them. The invoice however also refers to deodorising and cleaning 5 bedrooms. The landlord has not persuaded me that this work was required. I have tried as best as I am able to allocate the costs claimed to the different tasks. The tenant is to pay $200.00 for the stain removal.
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.
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 walls and ceiling were damaged during the tenancy. The tenant accepts liability for the painting required on the walls. That part of the claim $218.00, is proven. The landlord says that paint chips have come off the ceiling during the tenancy and that these also had to be painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is for $138.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Mjf Investment Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5064908 — net $1,261.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$278.19	Water rates
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$356.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,261.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,261.19

Order

Ajnil Prasad and Nikita Narayan must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Mjf Investment Trust $1,261.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 October 2024. The tenant agreed with the amount claimed by the landlord. The tenant is to pay $278.19.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
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 photographs of the premises. The landlord agreed that the cleaning conducted and which the claim is made for, was cleaning to bring the premises to a standard where they could be re-let. That is not the standard required of the tenant. It is generally considered that reasonably clean and tidy is a lower standard and that a landlord should expect to carry out further cleaning at their own expense to bring it up to that superior standard. I have reviewed the photos and the invoice and consider that $400.00 would be a reasonable charge to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord claims $227.36. for lawn and garden work. The photos provided show quite a small lawn area. The work was carried out by the contractor on 18 October 2024. That is 11 days after the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that he had mown the lawns a week prior to the end of the tenancy. The key date is 7 October 2024 when the tenancy ended. I am not persuaded to the evidentiary standard required that the lawns and gardens were not reasonably tidy on 7 October 2024 and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks $379.50 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided photos with marks from felt markers. The tenant accepted responsibility for work needed to remove them. The invoice however also refers to deodorising and cleaning 5 bedrooms. The landlord has not persuaded me that this work was required. I have tried as best as I am able to allocate the costs claimed to the different tasks. The tenant is to pay $200.00 for the stain removal.
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.
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 walls and ceiling were damaged during the tenancy. The tenant accepts liability for the painting required on the walls. That part of the claim $218.00, is proven. The landlord says that paint chips have come off the ceiling during the tenancy and that these also had to be painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is for $138.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Mjf Investment Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5064908 — Cleanliness at 8D Bunnythorpe Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5064908 — Cleanliness at 8D Bunnythorpe Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

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