What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5088889 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 5088889?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Deoderise Bedroom: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4986210 D…: $7,570.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Room Table And Chair: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5088889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5088889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5088889 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 5088889?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Deoderise Bedroom: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4986210 D…: $7,570.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Room Table And Chair: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5088889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5088889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36D Eastern Beach Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5088889 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5088889 — net $9,051.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4986210 dated 01/11/2024	$7,570.62	Previous order application 4986210 dated 01/11/2024
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Deoderise bedroom	$230.00	Deoderise bedroom
Lock/key replacement	$460.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Dining room table and chair	$250.00	Repairs: Dining room table and chair
Water rates	$75.99	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,051.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,051.11

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 April 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also requested that a previous Tribunal order be incorporated with this one.

On 1 November 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears, outgoings and compensation. The landlord gave evidence that this order is not under arrangement. Therefore, the Tribunal order dated 1 November 2024 is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

WATER RATES

The tenant did not dispute the landlords claim for outstanding water rates of $75.99, which I grant in full. 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. 1

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not return the keys or garage remote. The landlord also claims the tenant did not return the original microwave provided at the beginning of the tenancy.

The landlord seeks compensation as follows: a. Cleaning:$575.00 b. Carpet cleaning:$287.50 c. Deoderise one bedroom:$230.00 d. Lock/key replacement:$460.00 e. Microwave replacement:$299.00

I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and highlighted the following issues: a. There is one piece of clothing left in one wardrobe drawer b. There are smudges near the handle of one internal door c. There is a small amount of personal belongings in the bathroom vanity drawer d. The bathroom sink has some dust, water and what appears to be spit in it 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

The landlord gave evidence that the floors were not cleaned but submits this cannot be seen properly in the photographs.

The landlord also gave evidence that the fridge and washing machine were not clean, but submits this cannot be seen properly in the photographs.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $575.00 for cleaning.

By a slim margin, I find the landlord has proven the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This property was very new and modern on the inside. The rent was $1,300.00 per week. These factors influence the standard of cleanliness and tidiness the tenant needed to leave the property in at the end of the tenancy in order to comply with their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.

Whilst I have found the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, I do not consider that $575.00 worth of cleaning needed to be completed. All that was required was for the items in the bathroom and wardrobe drawer to be disposed of, and the sinks to be cleaned. The rest of the property was left in a very clean and tidy condition on the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for an adjusted about of $150.00. I find this figure fairly reflects the amount of work required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Carpet cleaning and deoderising

The landlord gave evidence that the carpet throughout the property smelt. The landlord gave further evidence that one bedroom had a strong smell to it. The landlord suspected the tenant of keeping a pet and the tenant accepts that they kept a puppy at the property, which they were not permitted to do.

The tenant gave evidence that they did not recall the carpet or bedroom smelling however, the landlord gave evidence that it was noticeable upon completing the final inspection.

On the balance of probabilities, I accept the landlord’s evidence and find that the carpet and bedroom where the puppy was mainly kept most likely smelt. It is possible that the tenant did not notice the smell, as they had gotten used to it over time.

The landlord had the carpet professionally cleaned and one bedroom deoderised. The landlord submitted invoices for the following amounts: a. Carpet cleaning:$287.50 b. Deoderise one bedroom:$230.00

The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is granted for $287.50 and deoderising for $230.00. Locks/keys

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the keys to the sliding doors or garage remote.

The tenant was unable to recall whether they returned these items or not.

I accept the landlord’s evidence and find the tenant most likely did not return the keys to the sliding doors or garage remote.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $460.00 to replace the keys, locks and garage remote. I grant their claim for compensation for this amount. Microwave

The landlord gave evidence that a Panasonic microwave was provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end. The landlord claims a different, cheaper microwave was left behind by the tenant.

The landlord did not submit an invoice for the purchase of a new microwave. The landlord submitted an advertisement for what they claim is a similar microwave with a sale price of $299.00.

The tenant gave evidence that their daughter damaged the microwave when she was heating something up. The tenant purchased a new microwave that she left behind at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claims that the original microwave was not a Panasonic microwave, but a cheap microwave from Kmart.

The photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy are not clear. I am not able to discern the make and model of the microwave from the photographs submitted. The landlord did not provide an invoice for the purchase of the original microwave.

The parties gave conflicting evidence about the quality of the original microwave provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not submit any additional evidence to support their claim that the original microwave was worth $299.00 or that they have purchased a replacement microwave for this amount.

The landlord has not proven that they have suffered a financial loss equivalent to $299.00. As the tenant left a replacement microwave behind at the end of the tenancy, I decline to grant the landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the microwave.

This claim is dismissed.

DAMAGE

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.

The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for stains to the mattresses and damage in the form of slight fraying to one mattress. The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the dining room table and chairs.

I deal with each issue in turn below. Mattresses

The landlord submitted photographs of the mattresses taken at the end of the tenancy. Some slight fraying is apparent on the side of one mattress. Small marks are apparent on the other mattresses, including a moderate sized yellow mark on one mattress. The landlord claims the yellow mark is urine, which the tenant disagrees with.

The tenant gave evidence that they steam cleaned the mattresses at the end of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence they were unaware of the fraying on one of the mattresses and submits that if this occurred during the tenancy, it is fair wear and tear. The tenant gave evidence that they were unsure whether the marks on the mattresses occurred during the tenancy or not.

The landlord submitted photographs of the beds taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Unfortunately, the state of the mattresses is not apparent, as the beds are fully made in the photographs.

In the absence of photographs which show the mattresses at the beginning of the tenancy, I am uncertain whether they had marks on them at the beginning or not. I am also uncertain whether the one mattress had slight fraying at the beginning or not. The landlord gave evidence that the property was previously used as an Air B&B. This means the mattresses most likely were slept on by other people residing at the address who could have caused the marks or fraying.

The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the mattresses were damaged during this tenancy.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to clean and replace the mattresses is dismissed. Dining room table and chair

The landlord submitted photographs of the dining room table and four chairs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end show the dining room table has a large black mark on it and one chair is missing.

The tenant gave evidence that they kept the dining room table and chairs in the garage and the large black mark is mould. The tenant claims they tried to clean it but it would not come off. The tenant states they do not know what happened to the missing dining room chair.

On the balance of probabilities, I find the dining room table and one chair were damaged during the tenancy. I consider the damage to be careless, rather than intentional.

The landlord gave evidence that they have not replaced the dining room table and chair yet. The landlord seeks compensation of $690.00 to replace the dining room table and chair. The landlord claims this estimate is based upon a Google search of similar products but did not submit the results of these Google searches to the Tribunal. The landlord gave evidence that the dining room table and chairs were not brand new at the beginning of the tenancy but were not very old either.

I find the landlord has suffered a financial loss by having the dining room table and chair damaged during the tenancy however, they have not proven that this loss equates to $690.00.

In all the circumstances, I consider it is fair and reasonable that the landlord be compensated $250.00 to replace the damaged dining room table and chair.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the dining room table and chair is granted for $250.00.

All of the amounts ordered above are proved.

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 the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their request for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5088889 — net $9,051.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4986210 dated 01/11/2024	$7,570.62	Previous order application 4986210 dated 01/11/2024
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Deoderise bedroom	$230.00	Deoderise bedroom
Lock/key replacement	$460.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Dining room table and chair	$250.00	Repairs: Dining room table and chair
Water rates	$75.99	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,051.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,051.11