What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136330 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 5136330?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $293.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Rubbish Bin: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11666561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5136330 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 5136330?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $293.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Rubbish Bin: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11666561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5136330 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136330 — net $1,139.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$325.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace rubbish bin	$230.00	Replace rubbish bin
Oven/stove cleaning: Replace rangehood filter	$293.30	Oven/stove cleaning: Replace rangehood filter
Repairs: Wall damage	$264.50	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,139.80
Bond	$1,139.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,139.80

The landlord attended the video hearing.

The tenant did not join the remote hearing and was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 7 December 2023 and ended on 7 December 2024. 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.”

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

1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

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 Cleaning principles

If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, 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. Carpet cleaning

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The carpet was stained in a number of places. Pre and post tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim. An invoice was provided in support of the claim for $325 and I make an order for the full amount claimed Chattels

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy.

The kitchen rubbish bin. A quote was provided to replace the bin of $200-$250 plus GST. The landlord has not yet replaced the bin. I make an order for $230 being the lower amount quoted to replace the bin and I consider this reasonably reflects the usual cost for bin replacements. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3

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. 4

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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7

The landlord said the insurance excess was $1,250 and rent was $770 per week.

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. 8 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. 9 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

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. Range hood

The tenant removed one of the range hood filters, in effect damaging the rangehood as it cannot be used appropriately without the filter. The landlord provided pre and post tenancy photographs and an invoice in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. The amount claimed of $293.30 ordered is in full. Wall damage

The landlord says the study and hallway walls were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claimed $230 + GST for the repairs. Pre tenancy and post tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim with the invoice for the repair. The evidence proves the walls were damaged during the tenancy.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. The amount ordered for the repair is $264.50. Soffit damage

The landlord claimed the soffit was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claimed $220 + GST to repair the soffit. The landlord provided pre inspection and post inspection photographs in support of the claim and an invoice. The pre inspection photographs clearly show that the soffit had a large crack in it and was mouldy in the area where there is now a large hole. I cannot discount that the damage is the result of further fair wear and tear. The amount claimed for the soffit damage is dismissed. Kitchen sink damage

The landlord claimed $995 + GST to replace the damaged sink. Pre and post tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim as was a quote. The kitchen sink appeared stained from what appears to be heavy-duty cleaning. I consider a kitchen sink should not be stained from heavy-duty cleaning and the sink seems likely to be made of inferior material to be stained from cleaning. The quote to replace the kitchen sinks says it would be best to have this installed in black as this hides most wear and tear. I consider the tenant has most likely used the sink in its usual way, for cleaning dishes, and the damage is therefore not more than fair and wear and tear. I dismiss the claim in respect of the kitchen sink damage. Filing fee - $27

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Bond

Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. The balance is to remain at the bond centre. Suppression

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136330 — net $1,139.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$325.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace rubbish bin	$230.00	Replace rubbish bin
Oven/stove cleaning: Replace rangehood filter	$293.30	Oven/stove cleaning: Replace rangehood filter
Repairs: Wall damage	$264.50	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,139.80
Bond	$1,139.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,139.80

The landlord attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 7 December 2023 and ended on 7 December 2024. Relevant legal considerations

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.

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

1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord said the insurance excess was $1,250 and rent was $770 per week.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. The amount ordered for the repair is $264.50. Soffit damage

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Bond

Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. The balance is to remain at the bond centre. Suppression

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136330 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136330 — Cleanliness

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