What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137749 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 5137749?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $344.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,851.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $146.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137749?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11540576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137749 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 5137749?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $344.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,851.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $146.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137749?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11540576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 16 Mistletoe Place, Browns Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5137749 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137749 — net $2,484.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,851.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$146.93	Water rates
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$344.08	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,484.44
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,484.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mischa Charles Tane Belton and Juyao Wu are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,484.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,484.44 Mischa Charles Tane Belton and Juyao Wu: $75.56

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. [Representatives for the landlord] attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had applied for exemplary damages but advised during the hearing that that claim is withdrawn.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these expectations is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 08 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger and water rates invoices.
The tenant said they did not dispute that these amounts are owed.
These claims are proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord took photographs and advised the tenant that the cleaning was not sufficient. The tenant returned to the premises to undertake further cleaning and, once that was completed, took her own photographs. The landlord returned to the premises shortly after and took further photographs.
I have reviewed the photographs and find that there were some areas left by the tenant that were not reasonably clean such as the inside of the oven, mouldy arears around the sealant in the shower and areas that needed to be wiped or wiped more thoroughly.
However, the tenant said that the inside of the oven and the shower were in the same condition as the tenant left them at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not have any pre-tenancy photographs and said this was because the landlord purchased the premises with the tenancy in place and the previous agents did not supply any pre-tenancy photographs. The landlord referred to an inspection report they said was completed by the previous agents at the start of the tenancy. However, the document was not signed by the tenants, and the tenants said they had not seen it before.
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA provides that landlords shall “provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness”. If, as the tenant says, the oven was dirty and the shower had black mould at the start of the tenancy, it is not reasonable to expect the tenant to have returned it in an improved condition.
This case is yet another example of the importance of landlords ensuring that pre-tenancy photographs and reports are completed at the start of the tenancy and copies of the same are retained. Where a landlord is inheriting a tenancy from a vendor, the landlord would be wise to ensure that any failure of the vendor to retain such documentary evidence of the state of premises at the start of the tenancy is uncovered in the due diligence stage. Without this evidence, it is virtually impossible on the face of competing to determine whether the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Given that this is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof, I find that that the tenant is not responsible of the cleaning of the oven and shower. However, I do consider there were areas that the tenant did not leave reasonable clean and tidy and award $115.00 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says that the tenant has damaged the paintwork on the walls and is claiming $690.00 (including GST) for this damage.
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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 where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The tenant says the damage to the walls was caused when, at the end of the tenancy, they removed adhesive picture hangers from the walls. The tenant says that this left marks on the walls which they repainted. The landlord provided photographs of the walls after the tenant had repainted them and you could clearly see the new paint.
The tenant says that the interior of the premises was not freshly painted when they moved into the premises in February 2019 and appeared to have not been painted for some time. The tenant says that the damage to the walls is wear and tear.
As the landlord inherited the tenancy when the premises was purchased, they were unable to advise when the interior of the premises were last painted. As set out above, the landlord did not have any pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the paint at the start of the tenancy. The representatives referred to an inspection report they said was done by the previous agents at the start of the tenancy. However, as set out above, the document was not signed by the tenants, and the tenant’s said they had not seen it before.
The representatives showed a video of the premises taken by the previous agent during the current tenancy in August 2021. This video evidence showed the walls before the pictures had been hung. I consider the walls, while not freshly painted, were in reasonable condition.
It is not disputed that the damage to the walls was done during the tenancy. I find that the damage is more than fair wear or tear and that it was careless for the tenant to use the adhesive hooks. I find the tenant to be responsible for the damage.
However, I must consider 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. Given the condition of the paint work, I find that it had been at least 8 years since the premises had been painted and that the paintwork had a useful lifespan of 12 years. Having taken into account the age and condition of the paintwork, I award the landlord $344.08 (including GST) for this claim. Other matters:
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I grant the application for suppression and order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137749 — net $2,484.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,851.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$146.93	Water rates
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$344.08	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,484.44
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,484.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mischa Charles Tane Belton and Juyao Wu are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,484.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,484.44 Mischa Charles Tane Belton and Juyao Wu: $75.56

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. [Representatives for the landlord] attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had applied for exemplary damages but advised during the hearing that that claim is withdrawn.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these expectations is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 08 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger and water rates invoices.
The tenant said they did not dispute that these amounts are owed.
These claims are proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord took photographs and advised the tenant that the cleaning was not sufficient. The tenant returned to the premises to undertake further cleaning and, once that was completed, took her own photographs. The landlord returned to the premises shortly after and took further photographs.
I have reviewed the photographs and find that there were some areas left by the tenant that were not reasonably clean such as the inside of the oven, mouldy arears around the sealant in the shower and areas that needed to be wiped or wiped more thoroughly.
However, the tenant said that the inside of the oven and the shower were in the same condition as the tenant left them at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not have any pre-tenancy photographs and said this was because the landlord purchased the premises with the tenancy in place and the previous agents did not supply any pre-tenancy photographs. The landlord referred to an inspection report they said was completed by the previous agents at the start of the tenancy. However, the document was not signed by the tenants, and the tenants said they had not seen it before.
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA provides that landlords shall “provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness”. If, as the tenant says, the oven was dirty and the shower had black mould at the start of the tenancy, it is not reasonable to expect the tenant to have returned it in an improved condition.
This case is yet another example of the importance of landlords ensuring that pre-tenancy photographs and reports are completed at the start of the tenancy and copies of the same are retained. Where a landlord is inheriting a tenancy from a vendor, the landlord would be wise to ensure that any failure of the vendor to retain such documentary evidence of the state of premises at the start of the tenancy is uncovered in the due diligence stage. Without this evidence, it is virtually impossible on the face of competing to determine whether the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Given that this is the landlord’s claim, and the landlord has the burden of proof, I find that that the tenant is not responsible of the cleaning of the oven and shower. However, I do consider there were areas that the tenant did not leave reasonable clean and tidy and award $115.00 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says that the tenant has damaged the paintwork on the walls and is claiming $690.00 (including GST) for this damage.
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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 where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The tenant says the damage to the walls was caused when, at the end of the tenancy, they removed adhesive picture hangers from the walls. The tenant says that this left marks on the walls which they repainted. The landlord provided photographs of the walls after the tenant had repainted them and you could clearly see the new paint.
The tenant says that the interior of the premises was not freshly painted when they moved into the premises in February 2019 and appeared to have not been painted for some time. The tenant says that the damage to the walls is wear and tear.
As the landlord inherited the tenancy when the premises was purchased, they were unable to advise when the interior of the premises were last painted. As set out above, the landlord did not have any pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the paint at the start of the tenancy. The representatives referred to an inspection report they said was done by the previous agents at the start of the tenancy. However, as set out above, the document was not signed by the tenants, and the tenant’s said they had not seen it before.
The representatives showed a video of the premises taken by the previous agent during the current tenancy in August 2021. This video evidence showed the walls before the pictures had been hung. I consider the walls, while not freshly painted, were in reasonable condition.
It is not disputed that the damage to the walls was done during the tenancy. I find that the damage is more than fair wear or tear and that it was careless for the tenant to use the adhesive hooks. I find the tenant to be responsible for the damage.
However, I must consider 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. Given the condition of the paint work, I find that it had been at least 8 years since the premises had been painted and that the paintwork had a useful lifespan of 12 years. Having taken into account the age and condition of the paintwork, I award the landlord $344.08 (including GST) for this claim. Other matters:
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I grant the application for suppression and order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137749 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 16 Mistletoe Place, Browns Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137749 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 16 Mistletoe Place, Browns Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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