What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093068 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 5093068?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Driveway Washing: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Finishing Off 2 Internal Doors: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Gardening: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Labour: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,517.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Christmas Lights From The…: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,085.74 awarded to landlord; Replace Rail: $113.23 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $793.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $334.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093068?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11394720-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093068 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 5093068?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Driveway Washing: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Finishing Off 2 Internal Doors: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Gardening: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Labour: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,517.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Christmas Lights From The…: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,085.74 awarded to landlord; Replace Rail: $113.23 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $793.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $334.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093068?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11394720-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093068 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093068 — net $2,701.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/1/25	$2,085.74	Rent arrears to 1/1/25
Patch repairs during tenancy	$1,517.58	Patch repairs during tenancy
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$793.50	Rubbish removal
Removal of Christmas lights from the house	$60.00	Removal of Christmas lights from the house
Driveway washing	$100.00	Driveway washing
Finishing off 2 internal doors	$550.00	Finishing off 2 internal doors
Repairing damaged door frame	$100.00	Repairing damaged door frame
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$334.41	5. The claims that are agreed to are as follows: a.
labour	$100.00	labour
Gardening	$100.00	Gardening
Replace rail	$113.23	Replace rail
Net award	$2,701.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,701.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,701.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord/s representative] represented the landlord. Both tenants attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants dispute some claims and consent to others. I discuss each disputed claim below whilst noting that both parties were provided with time post hearing to submit further evidence in support of their positions. Considerable evidence was filed, all of which has been considered.
There is a conflict of evidence, which is not uncommon in cases of this kind. The role of the Tribunal is to assess the evidence and determine whether allegations are established to the requisite standard, the civil standard of balance of probabilities. In other words, determine, based on the evidence, what is more likely than not. In this respect I note that the burden of proof is on the applicant, in this case the landlord.
The claims that are agreed to are as follows: a. Rent arears. b. Water rates arrears. c. Removal of Christmas lights from the house. d. Washing the driveway from paint marks. e. Removing rubbish left at the premise. f. Finishing off two internal doors that were installed by the tenants. This includes replacing one handle set that had not been installed correctly. g. Repairing damaged door frame in bathroom. h. Patch repairs undertaken during tenancy.
Some amounts ordered for the agreed claims have been calculated taking into account the work required and industry standards and usual costs of which the Tribunal is familiar. This is because the invoice provided in some parts was generalised. The amounts ordered are considered reasonable in the circumstances, see section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The claims that were withdrawn at the hearing are as follows: a. Pest control. b. Garage repairs. c. Repairs to kitchen windowsill. d. Replacing light bulbs. e. Removing the mirror.

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claims $1,035 for having the whole house cleaned. Their submissions are that very little cleaning had been done and it is a large house, hence the high bill. The invoice provided itemises each room and the specific work that was undertaken. Examples of the work were cleaning off fly dirt, drawings, marks on curtains, fingerprints, splatter marks and sticky tape, dusting, and cleaning floors.
The tenants’ submission is that the house was left cleaner when they vacated than it was when they arrived. Their evidence is that on their first night they had to sleep on the floor in the kitchen as the house wasn’t clean enough to move into. They had cleaners come in before they could move their belongings in. They say they cleaned thoroughly when they left.
The tenants provided email evidence of raising issues with the property from several days after they moved in, and a number of photos and videos showing the state of the property.
The RTA details the obligations of tenants at the end of a tenancy. The tenant's statutory obligation 1 is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Having assessed the photographic evidence carefully I can see that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy way and was left in a similar way, if not slightly cleaner. There was certainly further work the tenants could have done to get the property to the statutory standard, however not a lot. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
Given the way the property was provided to the tenants it is not reasonable to require them to return it at a higher standard. A landlord has a clear statutory obligation to provide a premise reasonably clean and tidy at the commencement of a tenancy 2 and this was not done here. The only exception to this is the cleaning that was required for the drawings on the walls. That was essentially damage, and it is reasonable that the tenants pay for them to be cleaned off.
Accordingly, I award a nominal amount for cleaning the drawings from the wall but decline the remainder of the claim as not established in evidence.

Was the garden left reasonably tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation for their contractor weeding and weed spraying gardens and barked arears. They say there were very little weeds at tenancy commencement and many more post tenancy. They tenants say the areas were not weeded at the commencement and were left in a better state when they vacated.
Having assessed the photos of the garden it appears there are some more weeds at the end than there were at the beginning, but not a considerable amount. I find that a nominal award of $100 is reasonable for this claim. The relevant garden area is a messy and relatively unusable space which would require regular weed spraying given the uneven weed matting. The amount ordered is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Who should pay to reinstall the clothes rail?

In the bedroom wardrobe the tenants had removed a rail to make more room for their clothes. The rail remained in the wardrobe, but they did not rehang it. The landlord has claimed for the cost of purchasing and installing a new rail with brackets because the rail was bent and could not be aligned with the fixed brackets. The tenants say there was nothing wrong with the brackets.
Having assessed the oral and photographic evidence, I accept the tenants’ evidence that the rail was still in the wardrobe, but I also accept the trade’s evidence that it was bent. The photos do show that the bracket was slightly skew.
Accordingly, this claim is established as careless damage.

Who is responsible for the damaged range hood filter?

2 Section 45(1)(a)RTA

The evidence establishes that one filter on the range hood was bent. The tenants offer no evidence as to how this happened.
To be successful in such a claim, 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.
Given the size of the bend/dent I am satisfied that this is careless damage and as such a tenant cost. This claim is upheld.
I note that the trade gave evidence the other three filters had damage to the mesh however I consider this fair wear and tear. The photos at the commencement of the tenancy show them askew and clearly used. Accordingly, the claim for the two other filters is dismissed.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because a majority of this order is made by consent, it is appropriate that suppression orders are made in favour of both parties. 3

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093068 — net $2,701.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/1/25	$2,085.74	Rent arrears to 1/1/25
Patch repairs during tenancy	$1,517.58	Patch repairs during tenancy
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$793.50	Rubbish removal
Removal of Christmas lights from the house	$60.00	Removal of Christmas lights from the house
Driveway washing	$100.00	Driveway washing
Finishing off 2 internal doors	$550.00	Finishing off 2 internal doors
Repairing damaged door frame	$100.00	Repairing damaged door frame
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$334.41	5. The claims that are agreed to are as follows: a.
labour	$100.00	labour
Gardening	$100.00	Gardening
Replace rail	$113.23	Replace rail
Net award	$2,701.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,701.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,701.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord/s representative] represented the landlord. Both tenants attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants dispute some claims and consent to others. I discuss each disputed claim below whilst noting that both parties were provided with time post hearing to submit further evidence in support of their positions. Considerable evidence was filed, all of which has been considered.
There is a conflict of evidence, which is not uncommon in cases of this kind. The role of the Tribunal is to assess the evidence and determine whether allegations are established to the requisite standard, the civil standard of balance of probabilities. In other words, determine, based on the evidence, what is more likely than not. In this respect I note that the burden of proof is on the applicant, in this case the landlord.
The claims that are agreed to are as follows: a. Rent arears. b. Water rates arrears. c. Removal of Christmas lights from the house. d. Washing the driveway from paint marks. e. Removing rubbish left at the premise. f. Finishing off two internal doors that were installed by the tenants. This includes replacing one handle set that had not been installed correctly. g. Repairing damaged door frame in bathroom. h. Patch repairs undertaken during tenancy.
Some amounts ordered for the agreed claims have been calculated taking into account the work required and industry standards and usual costs of which the Tribunal is familiar. This is because the invoice provided in some parts was generalised. The amounts ordered are considered reasonable in the circumstances, see section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The claims that were withdrawn at the hearing are as follows: a. Pest control. b. Garage repairs. c. Repairs to kitchen windowsill. d. Replacing light bulbs. e. Removing the mirror.

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claims $1,035 for having the whole house cleaned. Their submissions are that very little cleaning had been done and it is a large house, hence the high bill. The invoice provided itemises each room and the specific work that was undertaken. Examples of the work were cleaning off fly dirt, drawings, marks on curtains, fingerprints, splatter marks and sticky tape, dusting, and cleaning floors.
The tenants’ submission is that the house was left cleaner when they vacated than it was when they arrived. Their evidence is that on their first night they had to sleep on the floor in the kitchen as the house wasn’t clean enough to move into. They had cleaners come in before they could move their belongings in. They say they cleaned thoroughly when they left.
The tenants provided email evidence of raising issues with the property from several days after they moved in, and a number of photos and videos showing the state of the property.
The RTA details the obligations of tenants at the end of a tenancy. The tenant's statutory obligation 1 is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Having assessed the photographic evidence carefully I can see that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy way and was left in a similar way, if not slightly cleaner. There was certainly further work the tenants could have done to get the property to the statutory standard, however not a lot. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
Given the way the property was provided to the tenants it is not reasonable to require them to return it at a higher standard. A landlord has a clear statutory obligation to provide a premise reasonably clean and tidy at the commencement of a tenancy 2 and this was not done here. The only exception to this is the cleaning that was required for the drawings on the walls. That was essentially damage, and it is reasonable that the tenants pay for them to be cleaned off.
Accordingly, I award a nominal amount for cleaning the drawings from the wall but decline the remainder of the claim as not established in evidence.

Was the garden left reasonably tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation for their contractor weeding and weed spraying gardens and barked arears. They say there were very little weeds at tenancy commencement and many more post tenancy. They tenants say the areas were not weeded at the commencement and were left in a better state when they vacated.
Having assessed the photos of the garden it appears there are some more weeds at the end than there were at the beginning, but not a considerable amount. I find that a nominal award of $100 is reasonable for this claim. The relevant garden area is a messy and relatively unusable space which would require regular weed spraying given the uneven weed matting. The amount ordered is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Who should pay to reinstall the clothes rail?

In the bedroom wardrobe the tenants had removed a rail to make more room for their clothes. The rail remained in the wardrobe, but they did not rehang it. The landlord has claimed for the cost of purchasing and installing a new rail with brackets because the rail was bent and could not be aligned with the fixed brackets. The tenants say there was nothing wrong with the brackets.
Having assessed the oral and photographic evidence, I accept the tenants’ evidence that the rail was still in the wardrobe, but I also accept the trade’s evidence that it was bent. The photos do show that the bracket was slightly skew.
Accordingly, this claim is established as careless damage.

Who is responsible for the damaged range hood filter?

2 Section 45(1)(a)RTA

The evidence establishes that one filter on the range hood was bent. The tenants offer no evidence as to how this happened.
To be successful in such a claim, 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.
Given the size of the bend/dent I am satisfied that this is careless damage and as such a tenant cost. This claim is upheld.
I note that the trade gave evidence the other three filters had damage to the mesh however I consider this fair wear and tear. The photos at the commencement of the tenancy show them askew and clearly used. Accordingly, the claim for the two other filters is dismissed.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because a majority of this order is made by consent, it is appropriate that suppression orders are made in favour of both parties. 3

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093068 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093068 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

Was the garden left reasonably tidy?

Who should pay to reinstall the clothes rail?

Who is responsible for the damaged range hood filter?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

Was the garden left reasonably tidy?

Who should pay to reinstall the clothes rail?

Who is responsible for the damaged range hood filter?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions