What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100548?

The tribunal order states: Neel Devi must pay Jane Wang $18,789.24 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5100548?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4997789 D…: $13,370.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Sink: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,259.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100548?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11718094-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100548?

The tribunal order states: Neel Devi must pay Jane Wang $18,789.24 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5100548?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4997789 D…: $13,370.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Sink: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,259.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100548?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11718094-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Ashgrove Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100548 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100548 — net $18,789.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4997789 dated 06/11/2024	$13,370.44	Previous order application 4997789 dated 06/11/2024
Cleaning: - Interior and rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Cleaning: - Interior and rubbish removal
Cleaning: - exterior	$1,725.00	Cleaning: - exterior
Carpet Cleaning	$402.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$575.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: kitchen sink	$200.00	Repairs: kitchen sink
Rubbish removal	$1,259.30	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,789.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,789.24

Order

Neel Devi must pay Jane Wang $18,789.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 or 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.”
Both parties had witnesses give evidence during the hearing.

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. 2
The landlord claimed the following amounts (including GST): a. $1,725 for interior cleaning and rubbish removal. b. $1,725 for exterior rubbish removal. c. $402.50 for carpet cleaning. d. $575 for lawn mowing. e. $1,359.30 for three skip bins.
The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claims. Both parties provided photographs. The tenant provided photographs from the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided post tenancy photographs. The tenant did not 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all her rubbish.
Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy. 3 The tenant provided text messages from the previous property manager in which she was told to clean the premises herself at the start of the tenancy.
I also understand that the property was cleaned by the landlord to a level that it was able to be re-tenanted. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4 However, I consider it likely the tenant returned the premises in a significantly dirtier and untidier state than when she received it.
The tenant disputed that three large skip bins would have been required to remove the level of rubbish and goods left at the premises. I understand the landlord used the skip bins to remove some small trees. I consider that the photographs provided by the landlord show a significant amount of rubbish was left at the property and I accept the landlord was invoiced for three skip bins as these were required to remove all the rubbish.
Therefore, I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning and rubbish removal costs but made deductions to reflect the points above - that the tenant had to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy and as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition and to reflect the landlord disposing of some waste that the tenant was not responsible for.
The amounts ordered are (including GST): a. $1000 for interior cleaning and rubbish removal. b. $1,725 for exterior rubbish removal. c. $402.50 for carpet cleaning. d. $575 for lawn mowing – by consent. e. $1,259.30 for skip bins.
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered for the front door key replacement is $230 including GST.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 3 Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 5
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Kitchen sink
The kitchen sink was blocked with rice and debris at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s oral evidence was that the kitchen sink was blocked at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant also said that there was no plug strainer in the sink. The landlord says there was a strainer at the commencement of the tenancy. Given the length of the tenancy I consider it likely that during the tenancy the tenant has blocked the drain. However, without a pre tenancy inspection report to confirm that there was a strainer at the commencement of the tenancy I consider the landlord should be partly 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. liable for the cost of unblocking the sink for not ensuring there was a strainer. I therefore order $200 for unblocking the kitchen sink. Bedroom door knobs
The landlord says the tenant removed three-bedroom door knobs during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing three doors missing door knobs. Both parties provided oral evidence in relation to the door knobs. The previous property manager gave evidence that there were door knobs at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant and a friend she met through a “helping hands” online group gave evidence that there were no door knobs at the start of the tenancy. The tenant provided photographs of door knobs she purchased herself.
In the absence of a pre tenancy inspection report I consider the landlord has provided insufficient evidence in support of the claim to replace the bedroom door knobs and the claim is dismissed. Previous order
On 6 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears, incorporating the previous order of 22/8/24 and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100548 — net $18,789.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4997789 dated 06/11/2024	$13,370.44	Previous order application 4997789 dated 06/11/2024
Cleaning: - Interior and rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Cleaning: - Interior and rubbish removal
Cleaning: - exterior	$1,725.00	Cleaning: - exterior
Carpet Cleaning	$402.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$575.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: kitchen sink	$200.00	Repairs: kitchen sink
Rubbish removal	$1,259.30	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,789.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,789.24

Order

Neel Devi must pay Jane Wang $18,789.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 or 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.”
Both parties had witnesses give evidence during the hearing.

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. 2
The landlord claimed the following amounts (including GST): a. $1,725 for interior cleaning and rubbish removal. b. $1,725 for exterior rubbish removal. c. $402.50 for carpet cleaning. d. $575 for lawn mowing. e. $1,359.30 for three skip bins.
The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claims. Both parties provided photographs. The tenant provided photographs from the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided post tenancy photographs. The tenant did not 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all her rubbish.
Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy. 3 The tenant provided text messages from the previous property manager in which she was told to clean the premises herself at the start of the tenancy.
I also understand that the property was cleaned by the landlord to a level that it was able to be re-tenanted. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4 However, I consider it likely the tenant returned the premises in a significantly dirtier and untidier state than when she received it.
The tenant disputed that three large skip bins would have been required to remove the level of rubbish and goods left at the premises. I understand the landlord used the skip bins to remove some small trees. I consider that the photographs provided by the landlord show a significant amount of rubbish was left at the property and I accept the landlord was invoiced for three skip bins as these were required to remove all the rubbish.
Therefore, I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning and rubbish removal costs but made deductions to reflect the points above - that the tenant had to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy and as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition and to reflect the landlord disposing of some waste that the tenant was not responsible for.
The amounts ordered are (including GST): a. $1000 for interior cleaning and rubbish removal. b. $1,725 for exterior rubbish removal. c. $402.50 for carpet cleaning. d. $575 for lawn mowing – by consent. e. $1,259.30 for skip bins.
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered for the front door key replacement is $230 including GST.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 3 Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 5
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Kitchen sink
The kitchen sink was blocked with rice and debris at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s oral evidence was that the kitchen sink was blocked at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant also said that there was no plug strainer in the sink. The landlord says there was a strainer at the commencement of the tenancy. Given the length of the tenancy I consider it likely that during the tenancy the tenant has blocked the drain. However, without a pre tenancy inspection report to confirm that there was a strainer at the commencement of the tenancy I consider the landlord should be partly 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. liable for the cost of unblocking the sink for not ensuring there was a strainer. I therefore order $200 for unblocking the kitchen sink. Bedroom door knobs
The landlord says the tenant removed three-bedroom door knobs during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing three doors missing door knobs. Both parties provided oral evidence in relation to the door knobs. The previous property manager gave evidence that there were door knobs at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant and a friend she met through a “helping hands” online group gave evidence that there were no door knobs at the start of the tenancy. The tenant provided photographs of door knobs she purchased herself.
In the absence of a pre tenancy inspection report I consider the landlord has provided insufficient evidence in support of the claim to replace the bedroom door knobs and the claim is dismissed. Previous order
On 6 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears, incorporating the previous order of 22/8/24 and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100548 — Cleanliness at 41 Ashgrove Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100548 — Cleanliness at 41 Ashgrove Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

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