What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066011 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 5066011?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $841.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066011?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596794-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066011 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 5066011?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $841.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066011?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596794-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066011 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066011 — net $2,777.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wall damage - insurance excesses x 2	$1,800.00	Repairs: wall damage - insurance excesses x 2
Oven door repair	$109.25	Oven door repair
Glass sliding door repair	$841.00	Glass sliding door repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,777.25
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,777.25

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066011 — net $2,777.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wall damage - insurance excesses x 2	$1,800.00	Repairs: wall damage - insurance excesses x 2
Oven door repair	$109.25	Oven door repair
Glass sliding door repair	$841.00	Glass sliding door repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,777.25
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,777.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,777.25 from the bond of $3,440.00, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) apportioned as follows, immediately: a. To [The landlord/s] - $2,777.25 b. To [The tenant/s] - $662.75.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives], representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], the tenants, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the refund bond claim, indicating they have received the bond of $3,440.00 in full already. After the hearing, however, the Bond Centre notified the Tribunal that the bond of $3,440.00 is still held at the Bond Centre, pending the Tribunal’s order in this application, despite a request for the bond from the landlord. As such, I reinstate the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond so that the bond issue can be addressed for the parties.

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 (“RTA”).
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord provided an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 18 September 2024. There was no Ingoing Inspection Report provided. The landlord said they had taken over the property from another property management firm and did not have the Ingoing Inspection Report.
The landlord said there was mold left on blinds and windows, the extractor fan in the oven was not cleaned, there was some minimal rubbish left at the back in the bottom of a bedroom cupboard, the shower glass was not cleaned properly, the kitchen drawer handles were not properly wiped and the kitchen cupboards were not properly wiped. The landlord pointed to photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report highlighting these issues. From the photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report, it was difficult to see any dirt left on the extractor fan in the oven, on the shower glass or on the kitchen drawer handles or the kitchen cupboards. One photograph showed a couple of small items in the distance left at back of the bottom of a bedroom wardrobe, which the tenant said may have been a couple of Uno cards accidentally left by his son, which the property manager confirmed had been cards. It was also difficult to see much mold, if any, on the photograph of the blinds or on a window.
The tenants said they engaged a professional cleaner to clean the property for them while they were getting their belongings moved out. They said the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. They said, amongst other things, they sanitised the dishwasher, bleached the bathroom, cleaned the toilet and used a normal cleaning product on the shower glass. They said they also tried to clean the blinds, being conscious of the age of the blinds and not wanting to damage them in the cleaning process.
The landlord provided an invoice from a cleaning company in the amount of $1,800.62. The narrative in the invoice described a deep clean of the property by the company, which included the kitchen, bathroom, dishwasher, walls, lights, cleaning fly spots from the ceilings/walls, and other fixtures and fittings.
Given the evidence provided, particularly the difficulty in seeing much, if any, dirt that had to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy in the photographs provided, the tenant’s evidence that they engaged a professional cleaner who did many of the tasks in the landlord’s cleaning invoice narrative, the photographs which appeared to show the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, according to a tenant’s standard of this. As such, this claim 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.
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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage a. The landlord pointed to photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report showing the condition of the carpets in 2 bedrooms. The photographs showed one blue-ish stain on the carpet in one bedroom and one small brown stain on the other room’s carpet that were visible, along with some other much less visible stains in the second room carpet. The tenant said both visible stains had been discovered under furniture and they had not seen those stains until the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they engaged a professional carpet cleaner just before they left, who said they cleaned all the carpets but could not remove these stains. The tenant said their family had lived in the premises for 5 years and believed that the condition of the carpets in the 2 rooms were the result of fair wear and tear. b. The landlord said the insurance excess was $900.00 and the insurance company has charged them an excess for each ‘event’ in each room. As such, the landlord claimed for 2 insurance excesses for the carpet damage in 2 bedrooms, for a total of $1,800.00. The landlord provided a quote to replace the carpet for $3,474.34. c. The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report, or any other evidence, to show the condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. As such, the landlord has not shown that the damage to the carpets was caused during the tenancy. Therefore, I dismiss the carpet damage claims. Damage to walls in 2 bedrooms d. Damage to the walls in 2 bedrooms. The landlord said that some holes in 2 walls in each of 2 bedrooms were patched and painted by the tenant, that the paint was not matched properly and the patching was rather rough. As a result of the tenant doing this, the landlord said the holes had to be repatched and these walls repainted. e. The tenant acknowledged that their children had accidentally made some knocks and holes in the walls and that they had tried to patch them up and paint over them. They said they could not properly match the paint. I find this to be careless damage on the tenant’s part, given the evidence admitted by the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA. f. The landlord said the insurance company has charged them for 2 insurance excesses @ $900.00 each for damage to the walls in 2 bedrooms, for a total of $1,800.00. The landlord provided a quote for $2,932.50 from a handyman, to patch, sand and paint the walls. The landlord claimed the insurance excesses of $1,800.00. g. In terms of apportioning the quoted cost of $2,932.50 to patch, sand and paint the walls in the 2 bedrooms, which is not apportioned in the invoice provided, I find it appropriate to apportion half this total quoted cost to patching and sanding, and the other half of the quoted cost to painting. Thus, the apportioned cost for painting the walls in the 2 bedrooms is $1,466.25. Only the painting cost is subject to depreciation. h. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. i. The landlord did not provide evidence about when the property was last painted. Given the photographs provided of the property, the paintwork looks likely to be around 5 years old and I find the property was likely painted before the tenancy began. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such I deduct the quoted cost apportioned to the painting of $1,466.25 by 50% for depreciation to an award of $733.12 for painting the damaged walls in both bedrooms. This is then added onto the apportioned cost for patching and sanding the walls of $1,466.25 to come to $2,199.37. j. As the total of the 2 insurance excesses for the damaged walls, which is $1,800.00, is less than the depreciated costs to repair the walls in both rooms of $2,199.37, I award the landlord $1,800.00 to repair the damaged walls in both bedrooms. Damage to a 3 rd wall k. The landlord said there was damage to the wall in the study as there was a hole in the wall. The landlord provided a photograph of this hole in the wall and said the cost of this repair was below each insurance excess and so they did not include this wall repair in the insurance excess claims. The landlord claimed $747.50 for this repair but did not provide any invoice for this repair and so has not proved the amount claimed. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Chip in glass sliding door l. The landlord said there was a large chip in the glass in a sliding door at the property and provided a photograph of this. The tenant admitted that, when they were mowing the lawns at the end of the tenancy, a stone flicked up and caused the chip in the glass in the sliding door. I find this to be careless damage on the tenants’ part and so they are liable for the repair cost bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA. m. The landlord claimed $841.00 for this repair, which I find is reasonable given the damage to the glass in the sliding door. As this is a repair to the glass rather than replacement of the sliding door, I do not consider depreciation. Given the amount claimed is below the insurance excess of $900.00, I award the landlord $841.00 to repair the glass in the sliding door. Oven door glass broken n. A glass insert broken in the oven door. The landlord said a glass insert was broken in the oven door and had to be replaced. The tenant confirmed that, when they were cooking a chicken in the oven just before they left, they heard a loud bang and then saw that the middle glass insert in the oven door had shattered. I find this to be careless damage on the tenant’s part and so they are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA. The landlord claimed $109.25 for this repair. The tenant agreed to pay for this repair, so I award the landlord $109.25 to repair the oven door, by consent. o. The damage, as found above, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) apportioned as follows, immediately: a. To [The landlord/s] - $2,777.25 b. To [The tenant/s] - $662.75. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been mostly successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
All parties requested name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression, as they have been mostly successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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 tenants engaged a cleaner and professional carpet cleaner at the end of the tenancy, tried to communicate with the landlord to resolve post-tenancy issues and attended the hearing. The tenants have young children and are in another property now. Given this, I find the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066011 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066011 — Property damage

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