What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5101111?

The tribunal order states: Shivanand Ramnath and Neerasha Ramnath to pay Home Sweet Home Property

How much money was awarded in case 5101111?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $257.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101111?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320341-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5101111?

The tribunal order states: Shivanand Ramnath and Neerasha Ramnath to pay Home Sweet Home Property

How much money was awarded in case 5101111?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $257.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101111?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320341-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 304, 40 Library Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101111 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101111 — net $507.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Vanity replacement	$250.00	Vanity replacement
Wall repair	$257.50	Wall repair
Net award	$507.50
Bond	$787.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$507.50

Order

Shivanand Ramnath and Neerasha Ramnath to pay Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent For B.W. Trustee Ltd $507.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $787.27 (6278728-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent For B.W. Trustee Ltd: $507.50 Shivanand Ramnath and Neerasha Ramnath: $279.77
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant sand landlord. The tenants seeks to have a refund of the bond, the landlord seeks an order for compensation at the end of the tenancy. As discussed at the hearing, the bond release will depend on the outcome of the landlord’s compensation claims.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2019, ending on 30 November 2024, so was of long duration being some 5 years.
The parties could not agree on some of the compensation claims from the landlord at the end of the tenancy, so an application was filed with the Tribunal by both parties.
The parties underwent a mediation. From that it was agreed there would be a partial release of the bond, of $787.27 to the landlord (some claims were accepted), with the remainder staying in the Bond Centre, to be released following this Tribunal hearing. In short, I need to decide liability for the remaining four compensation claims.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the parties confirmed the outstanding dispute relates to the following claims from the landlord: a. Cleaning $57.50 b. Carpet cleaning $221.25 c. Vanity damage (Excess) $250 d. Wall repairs $257.50

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 party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the four claims in turn. Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that some cleaning was needed at the end of the tenancy, in particular the rangehood filter, the dishwasher and the cooktop. The cleaner did three hours of cleaning, but the landlord is only seeking one hour of that cost being $57.50.
In response the tenants consider the premises were reasonably clean, particularly given this was a long term tenancy of five years. The tenants further state that they had the tenancy commercially cleaned. The tenants are concerned that the landlord would not undertake an inspection with them, in which case they would have arranged the further cleaning themselves.
The property manager states she spoke with the tenant’s cleaners who said the range hood was not included. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord, and consider that the premises overall were returned reasonably clean and tidy. It is not unusual for a landlord to find some specific areas in a tenancy where additional cleaning is needed. But based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the tenants have complied with their obligation to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, meaning they are not liable for any additional cleaning costs. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs of $221.25. The landlord says there were black marks on the carpet. While the tenants did get carpet cleaned, that did not include spot cleaning. The landlord only seeks the cost for the spot cleaning.
The tenant states that there were some stains on the carpet at the start of the tenancy, otherwise say that the carpet was returned reasonably cleaned. Analysis
I have set out the legal consideration for cleaning claims above. Again, the carpet needs to be returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, and on balance, I consider it was. I recognise there were some stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy, and those stains probably were caused by these tenants.
But I am also minded that the nature and normal use of the carpets will result in the deterioration of that fixture, which could include staining over time. Here we have a tenancy that lasted five years, and so what might be expected from reasonable use deterioration will be much more than a tenancy of say 6 months.
There is also the general age of the carpet. The landlord advised that the carpet is about 8 years old. The Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR 265) holds that the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years, so in reality this carpet would, based on that measure, be at the end of its expected life.
This claim has not been established so is dismissed. Insurance excess – vanity damage
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for damage to the bathroom vanity. The landlord states that the vanity has been damaged during the tenancy and repaired with a putty-like substance by the tenants.
The tenants state that there was some damage to the vanity when a tenant was shaking a glass medicine bottle, his hands were slippery and it fell chipping the sink. The tenant repaired it with an epoxy substance. The tenant disputes that this was careless. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In my view, this damage is not fair wear and tear damage. I consider the damage was most likely careless damage. The tenant have not persuaded me that shaking a bottle with wet hands, and letting that slip out of one’s hands, would not be careless.
The tenant is liable for the damage cost (replacing the vanity) to the extent of the insurance excess, so this claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 4
The landlord seeks compensation of $257.50 for a repair to the wall. The landlord states the damage occurred from a home office when the tenants chair was hitting the wall. The tenant undertook a repair but it was of a poor standard.
The tenant agrees the damage to the wall was from a chair rubbing on the wall. The tenant considers the damage was properly repaired. Analysis
The damage is not fair wear and tear. Given it is likely to have occurred over a long period of time (consistent rubbing of the chair), and as the tenants would have been aware of the continuous erosion of the wall, it would be classed as intentional damage given the case law mentioned above. That means the tenants would be liable for the full repair cost.
The tenant’s defence is that they repaired the wall damage. I have considered the photographs presented by the landlord, and those show a very irregular plaster repair of the damage, the repair is certainly not tradesman-like. It would be unsurprising that the landlord elected to have a professional repair undertaken as they did. I find the tenants liable for that repair cost.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression the tenant has not. Given the landlord has not been substantially successful in the claims, name suppression for the landlord is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101111 — net $507.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Vanity replacement	$250.00	Vanity replacement
Wall repair	$257.50	Wall repair
Net award	$507.50
Bond	$787.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$507.50

Order

Shivanand Ramnath and Neerasha Ramnath to pay Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent For B.W. Trustee Ltd $507.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $787.27 (6278728-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited As Agent For B.W. Trustee Ltd: $507.50 Shivanand Ramnath and Neerasha Ramnath: $279.77
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant sand landlord. The tenants seeks to have a refund of the bond, the landlord seeks an order for compensation at the end of the tenancy. As discussed at the hearing, the bond release will depend on the outcome of the landlord’s compensation claims.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2019, ending on 30 November 2024, so was of long duration being some 5 years.
The parties could not agree on some of the compensation claims from the landlord at the end of the tenancy, so an application was filed with the Tribunal by both parties.
The parties underwent a mediation. From that it was agreed there would be a partial release of the bond, of $787.27 to the landlord (some claims were accepted), with the remainder staying in the Bond Centre, to be released following this Tribunal hearing. In short, I need to decide liability for the remaining four compensation claims.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the parties confirmed the outstanding dispute relates to the following claims from the landlord: a. Cleaning $57.50 b. Carpet cleaning $221.25 c. Vanity damage (Excess) $250 d. Wall repairs $257.50

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 party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the four claims in turn. Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that some cleaning was needed at the end of the tenancy, in particular the rangehood filter, the dishwasher and the cooktop. The cleaner did three hours of cleaning, but the landlord is only seeking one hour of that cost being $57.50.
In response the tenants consider the premises were reasonably clean, particularly given this was a long term tenancy of five years. The tenants further state that they had the tenancy commercially cleaned. The tenants are concerned that the landlord would not undertake an inspection with them, in which case they would have arranged the further cleaning themselves.
The property manager states she spoke with the tenant’s cleaners who said the range hood was not included. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord, and consider that the premises overall were returned reasonably clean and tidy. It is not unusual for a landlord to find some specific areas in a tenancy where additional cleaning is needed. But based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the tenants have complied with their obligation to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, meaning they are not liable for any additional cleaning costs. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs of $221.25. The landlord says there were black marks on the carpet. While the tenants did get carpet cleaned, that did not include spot cleaning. The landlord only seeks the cost for the spot cleaning.
The tenant states that there were some stains on the carpet at the start of the tenancy, otherwise say that the carpet was returned reasonably cleaned. Analysis
I have set out the legal consideration for cleaning claims above. Again, the carpet needs to be returned reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, and on balance, I consider it was. I recognise there were some stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy, and those stains probably were caused by these tenants.
But I am also minded that the nature and normal use of the carpets will result in the deterioration of that fixture, which could include staining over time. Here we have a tenancy that lasted five years, and so what might be expected from reasonable use deterioration will be much more than a tenancy of say 6 months.
There is also the general age of the carpet. The landlord advised that the carpet is about 8 years old. The Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR 265) holds that the estimated useful life of carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years, so in reality this carpet would, based on that measure, be at the end of its expected life.
This claim has not been established so is dismissed. Insurance excess – vanity damage
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for damage to the bathroom vanity. The landlord states that the vanity has been damaged during the tenancy and repaired with a putty-like substance by the tenants.
The tenants state that there was some damage to the vanity when a tenant was shaking a glass medicine bottle, his hands were slippery and it fell chipping the sink. The tenant repaired it with an epoxy substance. The tenant disputes that this was careless. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In my view, this damage is not fair wear and tear damage. I consider the damage was most likely careless damage. The tenant have not persuaded me that shaking a bottle with wet hands, and letting that slip out of one’s hands, would not be careless.
The tenant is liable for the damage cost (replacing the vanity) to the extent of the insurance excess, so this claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 4
The landlord seeks compensation of $257.50 for a repair to the wall. The landlord states the damage occurred from a home office when the tenants chair was hitting the wall. The tenant undertook a repair but it was of a poor standard.
The tenant agrees the damage to the wall was from a chair rubbing on the wall. The tenant considers the damage was properly repaired. Analysis
The damage is not fair wear and tear. Given it is likely to have occurred over a long period of time (consistent rubbing of the chair), and as the tenants would have been aware of the continuous erosion of the wall, it would be classed as intentional damage given the case law mentioned above. That means the tenants would be liable for the full repair cost.
The tenant’s defence is that they repaired the wall damage. I have considered the photographs presented by the landlord, and those show a very irregular plaster repair of the damage, the repair is certainly not tradesman-like. It would be unsurprising that the landlord elected to have a professional repair undertaken as they did. I find the tenants liable for that repair cost.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression the tenant has not. Given the landlord has not been substantially successful in the claims, name suppression for the landlord is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101111 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 304, 40 Library Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101111 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 304, 40 Library Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions