What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096116 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 5096116?

Dining Room And Side Table: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096116?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12606231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096116 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 5096116?

Dining Room And Side Table: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096116?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12606231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[the premises] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096116 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096116. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Dining room and side table	$100.00		Dining room and side table
Sofa and Bed repair	$172.50		Sofa and Bed repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6380843-002) immediately apportioned as follows, as per the table below: Wecro Nz Logistics Limited Trading As Wecro Property: $245.50 [the tenants]: $2954.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy in this matter commenced on 21 October 2020 and came to an end on 26 October 2024.
The premises are contained within a three level, 5 bedroom home.
On the ground level at this home, there is a garage, laundry, bedroom and ensuite, on the first level, a further bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living area, and on the top level, there are three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The original tenant was a friend of the current tenants. All tenants moved into the premises together. The original tenant moved out in 2022 and the existing tenants were named as the new tenants.
The agreement recorded that there were only four residents.
The tenants said that when they all moved in the landlord had already separately tenanted the ground level bedroom and bathroom to a tenant by the name of “Carol”. Carol was later replaced by someone else. The tenants did not occupy Carol’s area but seemed to have shared the laundry with her. The landlord said that Carol was the tenant’s flatmate, but the tenants strongly denied this.
No one by the name of Carol is mentioned on the tenancy agreement for the tenant’s tenancy.
I return to this topic below.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the following sums from the tenants: a. $1437.50, comprised of: i. Cleaning $630 plus GST ii. Washing the sofa $50 plus GST iii. Cleaning the carpet $160 plus GST iv. Cleaning the walls $260 plus GST v. Remove “all curtains mold” (zero figure attributed) vi. Rubbish removal $150 plus GST. b. $747.50, comprised of: i. Repair to walls and door $500 plus GST ii. Sofa leg repair and bed $150 plus GST c. $40 for a damaged small table d. $240 for a damaged dining table.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims there was rubbish left behind at the property. Photographs were produced, including photographs of clothing items located under a laundry sink. Photographs were also produced showing various other belongings including disused hard drives.
The tenants say they these photos were taken before or during the time when they were still cleaning the property and before they had finally disposed of their own rubbish. They produced a statement from someone who said he had allowed the tenants to dispose of their belongings in a skip bin.
They also say they paid a commercial cleaner to clean the property and they produced a detailed invoice for that work. They provided photographs which show the condition of the property on exit. They say the clothing under the sink was not theirs and could have belonged to Carol.
The landlord supplied photographs to show some areas of the property which it submits required further cleaning. Some arears of dirt can be observed.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1
The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. 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 based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens 2 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008 standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The photographs that were produced to me satisfy me that the premises for this tenancy were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. It may not have been to the high standard expected of the landlord and ready for an incoming tenant but I consider it was certainly at a level that I would describe as reasonably clean.
As to the rubbish, I also consider it was free of the tenant’s rubbish. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they had disposed of any rubbish before they left.
The landlord has complicated matters by appearing to have two separate tenancies at the one premises. The possibility that Carol’s replacement left some of this rubbish therefore cannot be ruled out. I cannot comment further on the relationship between the downstairs tenant and the landlord but if that was indeed an entirely separate relationship then it is possible it was unlawful, for reasons discussed with the parties at the hearing.
As to the carpet cleaning, the landlord points to what they describe as stains in the carpet. After a four year tenancy I would expect there to be evidence of carpet deterioration, such as small stains. In any event, the stains seemed fairly minor, based on the photographs I was shown.
The landlord also said they had to steam clean all the furnishings, including the mattresses and sofa. This was a four year tenancy. Chattels such as sofas, curtains and mattresses are no longer going to be in brand new condition. They will need to be steam cleaned anyway before a new tenant comes in. I consider some staining to be a reasonable incident of the wear and tear of such items.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for damages for cleaning and rubbish removal.

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.
In considering the landlord’s claim I take into account this was a lengthy tenancy and wear and tear is to be expected in any tenancy of that duration.
I consider that the marks / scratches on the walls and the dent in the door shown in the photos to be wear and tear typically associated with a tenancy of this duration. I dismiss that aspect of the claim. 3
The tenants accept they damaged the sofa and the bed. I will allow that claim as I am satisfied the damage could be said to be intentional. I award the landlord $150 plus GST for that repair ($172.50).
There were photos of a dining table with a crack in the leg (otherwise still looking functional) and a broken side table. The landlord says these cannot be repaired and are not being used.
I am only prepared to award the landlord $100 for the loss of small table and the dining table. The tenants accept damaging these items but I have no evidence before me that these items have been or even will be replaced, other than the landlord telling me they will. The premises have been tenanted. The landlord said the tenants should buy a table and take it to the premises. This hardly seems practical, given there is a new tenancy in place.
I will allow the landlord the total sum of $100 on the basis of a loss of amenity as I consider there is a loss in not having these items, albeit they appear not to have been replaced by the landlord.
I intend to award the tenants the filing fee and I award name suppression in favour of the tenants given they have largely succeeded in their defence of the landlord’s claim and therefore in their own claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096116. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Dining room and side table	$100.00		Dining room and side table
Sofa and Bed repair	$172.50		Sofa and Bed repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6380843-002) immediately apportioned as follows, as per the table below: Wecro Nz Logistics Limited Trading As Wecro Property: $245.50 [the tenants]: $2954.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy in this matter commenced on 21 October 2020 and came to an end on 26 October 2024.
The premises are contained within a three level, 5 bedroom home.
On the ground level at this home, there is a garage, laundry, bedroom and ensuite, on the first level, a further bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living area, and on the top level, there are three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The original tenant was a friend of the current tenants. All tenants moved into the premises together. The original tenant moved out in 2022 and the existing tenants were named as the new tenants.
The agreement recorded that there were only four residents.
The tenants said that when they all moved in the landlord had already separately tenanted the ground level bedroom and bathroom to a tenant by the name of “Carol”. Carol was later replaced by someone else. The tenants did not occupy Carol’s area but seemed to have shared the laundry with her. The landlord said that Carol was the tenant’s flatmate, but the tenants strongly denied this.
No one by the name of Carol is mentioned on the tenancy agreement for the tenant’s tenancy.
I return to this topic below.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the following sums from the tenants: a. $1437.50, comprised of: i. Cleaning $630 plus GST ii. Washing the sofa $50 plus GST iii. Cleaning the carpet $160 plus GST iv. Cleaning the walls $260 plus GST v. Remove “all curtains mold” (zero figure attributed) vi. Rubbish removal $150 plus GST. b. $747.50, comprised of: i. Repair to walls and door $500 plus GST ii. Sofa leg repair and bed $150 plus GST c. $40 for a damaged small table d. $240 for a damaged dining table.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims there was rubbish left behind at the property. Photographs were produced, including photographs of clothing items located under a laundry sink. Photographs were also produced showing various other belongings including disused hard drives.
The tenants say they these photos were taken before or during the time when they were still cleaning the property and before they had finally disposed of their own rubbish. They produced a statement from someone who said he had allowed the tenants to dispose of their belongings in a skip bin.
They also say they paid a commercial cleaner to clean the property and they produced a detailed invoice for that work. They provided photographs which show the condition of the property on exit. They say the clothing under the sink was not theirs and could have belonged to Carol.
The landlord supplied photographs to show some areas of the property which it submits required further cleaning. Some arears of dirt can be observed.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1
The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. 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 based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens 2 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 2 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008 standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The photographs that were produced to me satisfy me that the premises for this tenancy were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. It may not have been to the high standard expected of the landlord and ready for an incoming tenant but I consider it was certainly at a level that I would describe as reasonably clean.
As to the rubbish, I also consider it was free of the tenant’s rubbish. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they had disposed of any rubbish before they left.
The landlord has complicated matters by appearing to have two separate tenancies at the one premises. The possibility that Carol’s replacement left some of this rubbish therefore cannot be ruled out. I cannot comment further on the relationship between the downstairs tenant and the landlord but if that was indeed an entirely separate relationship then it is possible it was unlawful, for reasons discussed with the parties at the hearing.
As to the carpet cleaning, the landlord points to what they describe as stains in the carpet. After a four year tenancy I would expect there to be evidence of carpet deterioration, such as small stains. In any event, the stains seemed fairly minor, based on the photographs I was shown.
The landlord also said they had to steam clean all the furnishings, including the mattresses and sofa. This was a four year tenancy. Chattels such as sofas, curtains and mattresses are no longer going to be in brand new condition. They will need to be steam cleaned anyway before a new tenant comes in. I consider some staining to be a reasonable incident of the wear and tear of such items.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for damages for cleaning and rubbish removal.

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.
In considering the landlord’s claim I take into account this was a lengthy tenancy and wear and tear is to be expected in any tenancy of that duration.
I consider that the marks / scratches on the walls and the dent in the door shown in the photos to be wear and tear typically associated with a tenancy of this duration. I dismiss that aspect of the claim. 3
The tenants accept they damaged the sofa and the bed. I will allow that claim as I am satisfied the damage could be said to be intentional. I award the landlord $150 plus GST for that repair ($172.50).
There were photos of a dining table with a crack in the leg (otherwise still looking functional) and a broken side table. The landlord says these cannot be repaired and are not being used.
I am only prepared to award the landlord $100 for the loss of small table and the dining table. The tenants accept damaging these items but I have no evidence before me that these items have been or even will be replaced, other than the landlord telling me they will. The premises have been tenanted. The landlord said the tenants should buy a table and take it to the premises. This hardly seems practical, given there is a new tenancy in place.
I will allow the landlord the total sum of $100 on the basis of a loss of amenity as I consider there is a loss in not having these items, albeit they appear not to have been replaced by the landlord.
I intend to award the tenants the filing fee and I award name suppression in favour of the tenants given they have largely succeeded in their defence of the landlord’s claim and therefore in their own claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096116 — Property damage at [the premises]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096116 — Property damage at [the premises]

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

Claims & awards

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