What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5127509?

The tribunal order states: Ashley Cherie Ann Salu and Lafielilo Salu to pay Property Brokers Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5127509?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11561853-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5127509?

The tribunal order states: Ashley Cherie Ann Salu and Lafielilo Salu to pay Property Brokers Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5127509?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11561853-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Tiro Tiro Road, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5127509 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127509 — net $960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Plant replacement - by consent	$60.00	Plant replacement - by consent
Plant replacement / grasses	$400.00	Plant replacement / grasses
Net award	$960.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$960.00

Order

Ashley Cherie Ann Salu and Lafielilo Salu to pay Property Brokers Limited as agent for Quintin Myers $960.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (5918723-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited as agent for Quintin Myers : $960.00 Ashley Cherie Ann Salu and Lafielilo Salu: $1,360.00
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by MS Teams.
This is a cross application in respect of a tenancy in Levin that commenced on 26 May 2023 and ended on 9 December 2024.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation and payment of the bond. Relevant legal considerations
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 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 tenant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the tenant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the tenant 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. TENANT’S CLAIM
The tenants seek a refund of their bond of $2,320.00.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord withheld their rent overpayment for 13 weeks. The tenant says they experienced stress as a result of the delay in being paid the rent refund. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
The landlord acknowledged the delay in refunding the rent overpayment. It appears the landlord used the overpayment to pay the cleaning invoice they incurred in respect of the tenancy and the landlord owner delayed placing the funds into the agent’s account.
The Tribunal may make an order that the landlord pay to the tenant the whole or any part of any sum found to have been paid by way of rent in excess of the amount lawfully payable. 2 In the circumstances the agency should have promptly refunded the rent overpayment. However, the rent has now been refunded, therefore no order is required. The tenant did not seek any additional monetary compensation in relation to the claim and I make no order in respect of the claim. LANDLORD’S CLAIM

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 and return all keys and security devices. 3 Cleaning invoice
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
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.
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean 2 See s 78 (2)(k) of the RTA 3 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7
The landlord provided inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy, photographs, and an invoice to support the claim. The amount claimed was $799.25 for “advanced cleaning”. The landlord says that it appears very little cleaning was done. The tenant disputes this and says she, with family help, cleaned the premises.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
However, I consider the tenant was very close to doing so in the cleaning they did undertake. I consider the tenants should have cleaned the oven and undertaken a final wipe down of surfaces and bathroom plugs.
The tenant agreed to contribute $300 towards the carpet cleaning.
The balance of the claim is $499.25.
I consider the tenants should pay $200.00 of this to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken.
The total amount awarded for cleaning is $500.00. Garage remote
The landlord had applied for the cost to replace a garage remote however the tenant has since returned the remote and this claim was withdrawn.

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. 8
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 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 9 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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11
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. 12
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. 13
The landlord said the insurance excess amount is $550 when is less than 4 weeks rent.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Lavender and grasses were removed from the garden.
The tenant removed a number of lavender plants. By consent I make an order for $60 to replace the lavender removed by the tenant. This reflects the value of lavender plants as compared with the White Dazzler plants the landlord replaced the lavender with.
There was no agreement about the claim in respect of the grasses.
At the hearing the landlord claimed $420 for the grasses, which is supported by an invoice and photographs of the grasses. The tenant acknowledged removing the grasses but said she believed the grasses had died (as they looked like “hay”) or were weeds.
I consider the tenant has likely carelessly removed the grasses and make an order for the amount claimed of $400.00. I have limited the amount ordered to the amount claimed in the application form.
No order is made in respect of the landlord’s labour to plant the grasses and plants as insufficient evidence was provided in support of that claim and this claim was not included in the application form. 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(1) of the RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I have taken 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. I consider the amount’s ordered compensate the landlord for the loss of the plants removed and the landlord is not in a better or worse position. Exterior damage
At the hearing the landlord claimed compensation for damage to the exterior wall. This claim was not included in the original application. I declined to hear the matter at the hearing. If the landlord seeks further compensation they must file a fresh application. Filing fee
Neither party sought the filing fee. Suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord sought name suppression.
I consider there is a public interest in this case that the landlord’s name is published, despite having substantial success, given the tenant’s concerns about the rent overpayment being delayed and because of the landlords conduct in this case, in that at the hearing the landlord sought to claim an additional large amount for compensation for wall damage that was not included in the original application and was sent to the Tribunal 2 working days before the hearing. Accordingly, name suppression for the landlord is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127509 — net $960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Plant replacement - by consent	$60.00	Plant replacement - by consent
Plant replacement / grasses	$400.00	Plant replacement / grasses
Net award	$960.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$960.00

Order

Ashley Cherie Ann Salu and Lafielilo Salu to pay Property Brokers Limited as agent for Quintin Myers $960.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (5918723-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited as agent for Quintin Myers : $960.00 Ashley Cherie Ann Salu and Lafielilo Salu: $1,360.00
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by MS Teams.
This is a cross application in respect of a tenancy in Levin that commenced on 26 May 2023 and ended on 9 December 2024.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation and payment of the bond. Relevant legal considerations
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 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 tenant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the tenant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the tenant 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. TENANT’S CLAIM
The tenants seek a refund of their bond of $2,320.00.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord withheld their rent overpayment for 13 weeks. The tenant says they experienced stress as a result of the delay in being paid the rent refund. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
The landlord acknowledged the delay in refunding the rent overpayment. It appears the landlord used the overpayment to pay the cleaning invoice they incurred in respect of the tenancy and the landlord owner delayed placing the funds into the agent’s account.
The Tribunal may make an order that the landlord pay to the tenant the whole or any part of any sum found to have been paid by way of rent in excess of the amount lawfully payable. 2 In the circumstances the agency should have promptly refunded the rent overpayment. However, the rent has now been refunded, therefore no order is required. The tenant did not seek any additional monetary compensation in relation to the claim and I make no order in respect of the claim. LANDLORD’S CLAIM

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 and return all keys and security devices. 3 Cleaning invoice
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
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.
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean 2 See s 78 (2)(k) of the RTA 3 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7
The landlord provided inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy, photographs, and an invoice to support the claim. The amount claimed was $799.25 for “advanced cleaning”. The landlord says that it appears very little cleaning was done. The tenant disputes this and says she, with family help, cleaned the premises.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
However, I consider the tenant was very close to doing so in the cleaning they did undertake. I consider the tenants should have cleaned the oven and undertaken a final wipe down of surfaces and bathroom plugs.
The tenant agreed to contribute $300 towards the carpet cleaning.
The balance of the claim is $499.25.
I consider the tenants should pay $200.00 of this to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken.
The total amount awarded for cleaning is $500.00. Garage remote
The landlord had applied for the cost to replace a garage remote however the tenant has since returned the remote and this claim was withdrawn.

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. 8
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 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 9 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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11
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. 12
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. 13
The landlord said the insurance excess amount is $550 when is less than 4 weeks rent.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Lavender and grasses were removed from the garden.
The tenant removed a number of lavender plants. By consent I make an order for $60 to replace the lavender removed by the tenant. This reflects the value of lavender plants as compared with the White Dazzler plants the landlord replaced the lavender with.
There was no agreement about the claim in respect of the grasses.
At the hearing the landlord claimed $420 for the grasses, which is supported by an invoice and photographs of the grasses. The tenant acknowledged removing the grasses but said she believed the grasses had died (as they looked like “hay”) or were weeds.
I consider the tenant has likely carelessly removed the grasses and make an order for the amount claimed of $400.00. I have limited the amount ordered to the amount claimed in the application form.
No order is made in respect of the landlord’s labour to plant the grasses and plants as insufficient evidence was provided in support of that claim and this claim was not included in the application form. 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(1) of the RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I have taken 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. I consider the amount’s ordered compensate the landlord for the loss of the plants removed and the landlord is not in a better or worse position. Exterior damage
At the hearing the landlord claimed compensation for damage to the exterior wall. This claim was not included in the original application. I declined to hear the matter at the hearing. If the landlord seeks further compensation they must file a fresh application. Filing fee
Neither party sought the filing fee. Suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord sought name suppression.
I consider there is a public interest in this case that the landlord’s name is published, despite having substantial success, given the tenant’s concerns about the rent overpayment being delayed and because of the landlords conduct in this case, in that at the hearing the landlord sought to claim an additional large amount for compensation for wall damage that was not included in the original application and was sent to the Tribunal 2 working days before the hearing. Accordingly, name suppression for the landlord is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127509 — Cleanliness at 61 Tiro Tiro Road, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127509 — Cleanliness at 61 Tiro Tiro Road, Levin, Levin 5510

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions