What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5129975 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 5129975?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129975?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129975?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11711747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5129975 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 5129975?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129975?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129975?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11711747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 504, 21 Tawari Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5129975 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Kim Maea Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy finished in December 2024. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and carpet cleaning. The tenant does not agree to the claims. These are the landlord’s claims to prove.
Tenants must return the return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The carpet in the photos taken at the start of the tenancy looks no different to the carpet in the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning is not proved and it is dismissed.
I have carefully considered the photos taken at the end of the tenancy and the tenancy premises look reasonably clean and tidy to me. I accept a small amount of wiping was required in the kitchen but this would have taken maybe five minutes to complete. There were already black marks on the deck at the start of the tenancy. I am not persuaded that additional cleaning was required. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. The tenant does not agree to the claims, which means the landlord has to have the better evidence.
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.
I have considered the photos and the submissions. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s explanation that the kitchen handle repairs were needed because of fair wear and tear, and the mail box was in a common area so there is no way of knowing who damaged it.
The shower hose/head was repaired. I have considered the two photos provided by the landlord. He said the shower hose was broken at the end of the tenancy. There looks to be fair wear and tear so I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage.
There is a claim for painting walls and doors to remove marks and paint over patched repairs. I have carefully compared the ingoing report and the final inspections. There were marks on the painted walls at the start of the tenancy. There were already patched repairs on some of the walls. We looked at marks above the door in one of the bedrooms during the hearing and there is no corresponding photo of that area from the start of the tenancy. I find the landlord has not proven that the damage was done during the tenancy.
All claims for damage and repairs are dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for gas and water?

The landlord has claimed for gas and water. He provided two invoices in support of claim. These services are provided by the body corporate, which reads the meters quarterly. Section 39 RTA states that tenants are responsible for outgoings which can be exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. Because the bills include the months before and after this tenancy there is no way the landlord can prove what was exclusively used by the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenant. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord did not make an application for suppression. See section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited As Agent For Kim Maea Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy finished in December 2024. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and carpet cleaning. The tenant does not agree to the claims. These are the landlord’s claims to prove.
Tenants must return the return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The carpet in the photos taken at the start of the tenancy looks no different to the carpet in the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning is not proved and it is dismissed.
I have carefully considered the photos taken at the end of the tenancy and the tenancy premises look reasonably clean and tidy to me. I accept a small amount of wiping was required in the kitchen but this would have taken maybe five minutes to complete. There were already black marks on the deck at the start of the tenancy. I am not persuaded that additional cleaning was required. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. The tenant does not agree to the claims, which means the landlord has to have the better evidence.
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.
I have considered the photos and the submissions. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s explanation that the kitchen handle repairs were needed because of fair wear and tear, and the mail box was in a common area so there is no way of knowing who damaged it.
The shower hose/head was repaired. I have considered the two photos provided by the landlord. He said the shower hose was broken at the end of the tenancy. There looks to be fair wear and tear so I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage.
There is a claim for painting walls and doors to remove marks and paint over patched repairs. I have carefully compared the ingoing report and the final inspections. There were marks on the painted walls at the start of the tenancy. There were already patched repairs on some of the walls. We looked at marks above the door in one of the bedrooms during the hearing and there is no corresponding photo of that area from the start of the tenancy. I find the landlord has not proven that the damage was done during the tenancy.
All claims for damage and repairs are dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for gas and water?

The landlord has claimed for gas and water. He provided two invoices in support of claim. These services are provided by the body corporate, which reads the meters quarterly. Section 39 RTA states that tenants are responsible for outgoings which can be exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. Because the bills include the months before and after this tenancy there is no way the landlord can prove what was exclusively used by the tenant. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenant. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord did not make an application for suppression. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129975 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 504, 21 Tawari Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129975 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 504, 21 Tawari Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant pay for gas and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant pay for gas and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions