What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5099848 about?

The tribunal order states: As the successful party in its application, the Tribunal orders suppression of

How much money was awarded in case 5099848?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Rails: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $621.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5099848?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5099848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11399051-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5099848 about?

The tribunal order states: As the successful party in its application, the Tribunal orders suppression of

How much money was awarded in case 5099848?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Rails: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $621.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5099848?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5099848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11399051-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Colonial Place, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5099848 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5099848 — net $1,271.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$100.00	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$450.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: walls	$621.13	Repairs: walls
Repairs: curtains and rails	$100.00	Repairs: curtains and rails
Net award	$1,271.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,271.13

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5099848 — net $1,271.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$100.00	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$450.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: walls	$621.13	Repairs: walls
Repairs: curtains and rails	$100.00	Repairs: curtains and rails
Net award	$1,271.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,271.13

Order

As the successful party in its application, the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The parties must file any further claims, evidence or submissions by 5 pm Friday 7 March 2025 by email to palmerstonnorthtt@justice.govt.nz and to the other party using the reference 5099848.
Any claims, evidence or submissions received after that date will not be accepted by the Tribunal.
The tenant’s application is to be set down for a further day’s hearing before me in person on the next available date after 7 March 2025.
Eliza-jane Chapman must pay the landlord $1,271.13 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning: and rubbish removal$100.00 Carpet Cleaning$450.00 Repairs: walls$621.13 Repairs: curtains and rails$100.00 Total award$1,271.13 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,271.13

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. This interim order deals only with the landlord’s claims filed to date. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind.

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 rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of its claim that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have held: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant, and e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling, for example: rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord pointed to evidence of a build up of “grime” around light switches and doors. It claimed that there was a build-up of soap scum in the bathroom, there was fly dirt on the ceilings and some areas of skirting board were not wiped.
The tenant does not have to leave the premises spotless or in a condition where the property can be placed on the market. The photographs indicate that after a tenancy of nearly four years, the tenant had done a good job of cleaning the property to a reasonable standard, except for some small areas where a more vigorous wipe down was required.
On the photographic evidence before the Tribunal, the amount claimed by the landlord is excessive and represents a sum that the Tribunal sees for a full house clean where a tenant has made no effort to clean the premises. It is appropriate to award the landlord a modest sum for the small amount of further cleaning of some surfaces.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of some areas of staining to the carpet for which the tenant accepted responsibility. The landlord claimed for spot-cleaning the stains and for cleaning all the carpet in the property which the landlord claimed were dirty at the end of the tenancy.
The photographic evidence does not support a claim that the carpets were excessively or unusually dirty, beyond what would be caused by reasonable use, at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the carpets were in such a state that the tenant should be responsible for professionally cleaning them.
The tenant is responsible for removing the stains and amount is awarded to the landlord which is fair and reasonable for this service based on invoices which the Tribunal sees in this locality.
The landlord pointed to photographs showing a very few items left around outside in support of its claim for removal of rubbish. The photographs showed a full skip bin that the tenant had organised to remove her rubbish.
The tenant accepted that the very few items indicated by the landlord were hers and were left behind at the property.
Having considered the evidence and the amount of rubbish remaining, it is appropriate to award the landlord a modest sum in keeping with amounts which the Tribunal sees charged for a similar, small amount of rubbish in this locality.

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 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 provided photographic evidence of damage to the walls in a bedroom and the bathroom. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage which was not fair wear and tear.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the damage appears to be careless damage. The landlord gave evidence that the insurance excess was $750.00. The amount claimed is less than that amount, is fair and reasonable and is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord also claimed for repairs to a push-plug in the bathroom, the shower door and a curtain rail.
The tenant advised that neither the plug nor the shower door had ever worked throughout the tenancy and that she had complained repeatedly to the landlord about these issues. The tenant accepted that the curtain rail was damaged by a child during the tenancy.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the damage to the plug or shower door and that their failure was not due to fair wear and tear. An amount has been ordered for the repair of the curtain rail and the rehanging of curtains which seems reasonable for the time and skill required. Tenant’s claims
The tenant had filed an application that was not entirely clear. It appeared to indicate that she was seeking compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property, unlawful entry, breach of her quiet enjoyment and a failure by the landlord to comply with the smoke alarm requirements. Her application was unsupported by any evidence.
The landlord explained that the particulars of the tenant’s application was not sufficiently clear for it to understand her claims and the landlord was not therefore prepared to defend the tenant’s claims at the hearing.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s position. As the tenant is a layperson who is unfamiliar with the law and the Tribunal’s requirements, it is understandable that her claims were not well articulated in her application.
The Tribunal concluded that it was not fair to the landlord or the tenant to proceed with hearing the tenant’s claims at the hearing. It is necessary to adjourn hearing the tenant’s claims to allow the tenant to finalise her claims, provide evidence and make submissions and for the landlord to do the same.
To clarify for the tenant, the claims for compensation and exemplary damages which her application indicates are: a. The landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. See sections 45(1)(b) and 40(1)(d) RTA. b. The landlord’s breach of her quiet enjoyment. See section 38 RTA. c. The landlord’s unlawful entry to the property. See section 48 RTA. d. The landlord’s failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. See section 45(1)(ba) RTA.
It is important that the issues between the parties be resolved quickly and with the minimum of further delay. It is therefore necessary to set a deadline of 5 pm Friday 7 March 2025 before which each party must file any further claims, evidence or submissions by email to palmerstonnorthtt@justice.govt.nz using the reference 5099848. Each party is to email to the other party copies of anything emailed to the Tribunal.
The tenant should use the Tenancy Services website and telephone number to assist her in preparing for the next hearing and may care to search previous Tribunal orders to understand how the Tribunal comes to make decisions.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5099848 — Property damage at 20 Colonial Place, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5099848 — Property damage at 20 Colonial Place, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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