What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089672 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 5089672?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Costs Including The Car: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $392.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089672?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11363370-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089672 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 5089672?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Costs Including The Car: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $392.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089672?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11363370-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room D5, 33 Ada Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089672 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089672 — net $842.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$392.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Removal costs including the car	$200.00	Removal costs including the car
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$842.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$842.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must pay the tenant $30.00 immediately being the difference between the bond the landlord has received of $872.86 and the amount payable by the tenant of $842.86 detailed in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$392.86 Cleaning$150.00 Removal costs including the car$200.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Total award$842.86 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$842.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
The tenant’s application is to challenge deductions made from the bond by the landlord. The tenant is not estopped from doing so by signing the bond release form.
The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications on the substantial merits and justice of their cases as required by section 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 December 2023. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to 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, and remove all goods and rubbish. See section 66M(b) to (e) RTA.
The landlord explained that the tenant was incapable of removing his possessions from the premises at the end of the tenancy and his whanau did not respond to a request to assist. While the landlord did not provide photographs of the tenant’s room at the end of the tenancy, it did provide photographs from during the tenancy which clearly show that the tenant was not keeping the room reasonably clean and tidy and that the room contained a significant amount of rubbish and other items.
The landlord is a social housing provider and its tenancy agreement provides that the tenant agreed to meet the additional costs of $150.00 for cleaning the room when a tenant vacates and $150.00 to move a tenant’s possessions within the city boundaries.
The tenant objected to the cleaning cost because it did not provide photographs of the tenant’s room at the end of the tenancy.
What neither party disputed was that the landlord moved the tenant’s possessions from the tenant’s room to emergency housing. It follows from that - and the landlord’s evidence is accepted on the balance of probabilities - that the tenant had made no effort to clean his room and that it was in a similar state to that shown in the photographs.
The amount charged by the landlord for cleaning of $150.00 is reasonable.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, including the landlord’s verbal evidence at the hearing, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that there was rubbish to removed at the end of the tenancy and it is appropriate to award a sum of $100.00 for the removal of rubbish.
The amount charged for moving the tenant’s possessions of $150.00 is also reasonable and is awarded.
In the experience if the Tribunal, the amounts claimed by the landlord are at the lowest end of charges made for similar services by private contractors in this region and are fair and reasonable.
The landlord was seeking a further $150.00 compensation for moving the tenant’s car from the premises to the street. The tenant did not dispute that the landlord did this and there was no suggestion that the tenant was able to do so by the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is high if considered at an hourly rate, even though it saved the tenant from the even higher fees if it was towed. It is appropriate to award the landlord the sum of $50.00 for what should have been a job taking no more than half an hour.

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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.
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 claimed for the replacement of the carpet in the tenant’s room with second-hand carpet. The landlord claimed that the carpet had become stained during the tenancy but was unable to provide photographs of the carpet at the beginning or the end of the tenancy. The tenant rejected the claim for compensation.
The photographs provided of the carpet during the tenancy did not clearly indicate the need for replacement. While it is difficult to prove that a carpet has been damaged so that it smells and the smell cannot be removed, a report from a suitably qualified carpet cleaner to that effect is often accepted as satisfactory evidence by the Tribunal. The landlord did not provide such a report.
The landlord has not proved its claim on the balance of probabilities and so the landlord’s claim for carpet replacement is dismissed. Bond
The parties agreed that the bond had been refunded by the Bond Centre and apportioned $872.86 to the landlord and $227.14 to the tenant.
The Tribunal has awarded the landlord a total of $842.86. Having received $872.86 from the bond, the landlord is therefore required to pay the sum of $30.00 to the tenant. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had success in their applications, it is appropriate that each meets their own filing fee.
The tenant was represented by an advocate from a tenants’ union.
Both parties agreed that the tenant suffered under a psychological disability at the time the tenancy ended and that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to suppress his name and details.
Having considered the parties’ representations, the Tribunal confirms that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089672 — net $842.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$392.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Removal costs including the car	$200.00	Removal costs including the car
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$842.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$842.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord must pay the tenant $30.00 immediately being the difference between the bond the landlord has received of $872.86 and the amount payable by the tenant of $842.86 detailed in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$392.86 Cleaning$150.00 Removal costs including the car$200.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Total award$842.86 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$842.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
The tenant’s application is to challenge deductions made from the bond by the landlord. The tenant is not estopped from doing so by signing the bond release form.
The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications on the substantial merits and justice of their cases as required by section 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 December 2023. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to 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, and remove all goods and rubbish. See section 66M(b) to (e) RTA.
The landlord explained that the tenant was incapable of removing his possessions from the premises at the end of the tenancy and his whanau did not respond to a request to assist. While the landlord did not provide photographs of the tenant’s room at the end of the tenancy, it did provide photographs from during the tenancy which clearly show that the tenant was not keeping the room reasonably clean and tidy and that the room contained a significant amount of rubbish and other items.
The landlord is a social housing provider and its tenancy agreement provides that the tenant agreed to meet the additional costs of $150.00 for cleaning the room when a tenant vacates and $150.00 to move a tenant’s possessions within the city boundaries.
The tenant objected to the cleaning cost because it did not provide photographs of the tenant’s room at the end of the tenancy.
What neither party disputed was that the landlord moved the tenant’s possessions from the tenant’s room to emergency housing. It follows from that - and the landlord’s evidence is accepted on the balance of probabilities - that the tenant had made no effort to clean his room and that it was in a similar state to that shown in the photographs.
The amount charged by the landlord for cleaning of $150.00 is reasonable.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, including the landlord’s verbal evidence at the hearing, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that there was rubbish to removed at the end of the tenancy and it is appropriate to award a sum of $100.00 for the removal of rubbish.
The amount charged for moving the tenant’s possessions of $150.00 is also reasonable and is awarded.
In the experience if the Tribunal, the amounts claimed by the landlord are at the lowest end of charges made for similar services by private contractors in this region and are fair and reasonable.
The landlord was seeking a further $150.00 compensation for moving the tenant’s car from the premises to the street. The tenant did not dispute that the landlord did this and there was no suggestion that the tenant was able to do so by the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is high if considered at an hourly rate, even though it saved the tenant from the even higher fees if it was towed. It is appropriate to award the landlord the sum of $50.00 for what should have been a job taking no more than half an hour.

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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.
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 claimed for the replacement of the carpet in the tenant’s room with second-hand carpet. The landlord claimed that the carpet had become stained during the tenancy but was unable to provide photographs of the carpet at the beginning or the end of the tenancy. The tenant rejected the claim for compensation.
The photographs provided of the carpet during the tenancy did not clearly indicate the need for replacement. While it is difficult to prove that a carpet has been damaged so that it smells and the smell cannot be removed, a report from a suitably qualified carpet cleaner to that effect is often accepted as satisfactory evidence by the Tribunal. The landlord did not provide such a report.
The landlord has not proved its claim on the balance of probabilities and so the landlord’s claim for carpet replacement is dismissed. Bond
The parties agreed that the bond had been refunded by the Bond Centre and apportioned $872.86 to the landlord and $227.14 to the tenant.
The Tribunal has awarded the landlord a total of $842.86. Having received $872.86 from the bond, the landlord is therefore required to pay the sum of $30.00 to the tenant. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had success in their applications, it is appropriate that each meets their own filing fee.
The tenant was represented by an advocate from a tenants’ union.
Both parties agreed that the tenant suffered under a psychological disability at the time the tenancy ended and that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to suppress his name and details.
Having considered the parties’ representations, the Tribunal confirms that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089672 — Rent arrears at Room D5, 33 Ada Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089672 — Rent arrears at Room D5, 33 Ada Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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