What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145369 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 5145369?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145369?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11707903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145369 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 5145369?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145369?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11707903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5145369 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Joanne Paula Turnwald is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,636.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,636.13 Joanne Paula Turnwald: $603.87 DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,120.00 Carpet Cleaning$75.00 Rubbish removal$50.00 Repairs: shower head$141.13 Total award$1,386.13 Bond$1,386.13$853.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
Bearing in mind the above, the landlord’s evidence does not show that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
The tenant accepted that there was a small stain in a bedroom and noted that she had paid to have the carpets commercially cleaned on exit. The landlord’s photograph of the carpet in the lounge was too indistinct to determine whether there was a stain that required removal.
The tenant is liable for the spot removal of the stain in the bedroom. The landlord’s only evidence of his loss was a quote. The work has not been done. It is therefore appropriate to award an amount based on invoices the Tribunal sees in this region for such work.
The tenant accepted that there was a mirror left outside that the landlord had to dispose of. The tenant did not accept that the newly sown grass area at the back of the play fort was manure as claimed by the landlord. She advised that it was old grass clippings present at the start of the tenancy which she sowed with grass seed.
The tenant is responsible for the cost of removing the mirror and the Tribunal awards a reasonable amount for the small amount of work involved.
The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the tenant is responsible for the removal of the grass clippings which may have been there at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for this work is dismissed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The tenant had replaced the fixed showerhead with a hose showerhead. The landlord had to reinstate the fixed showerhead. b. The tenant had attached a number of stick-on picture hooks throughout the property and a large, decorative decal in the kitchen. c. There were cat scratches to the wallpaper and doors. d. Paint had removed around the back door when a decal had been removed. e. The paintwork in the bathroom required repair where the tenant had affixed pictures.
The landlord provided a quote for these repairs but the work has not been done and the property is on the market for sale.
The tenant gave evidence that: a. She changed the showerhead and was advised to leave it behind if she did not want it. b. She thought she would be in the property for some time and so attached the picture hooks. The decal in the kitchen can be peeled off without causing damage. c. The cat scratchings were present at the start of the tenancy and the tenant’s cat was not allowed inside. The tenant’s dog is too small to have caused any damage to the doors at the height of the damage. d. The small area of damage to the wallpaper was insignificant and was fair wear and tear. e. The marks in the bathroom were from pins and she had filled them in on leaving.
The shower hose was a fixture of the tenant and the tenant is responsible for reinstatement of the fixed shower head. The amount claimed by the landlord is reasonable and is proven.
There may be some work required in touching up marks left by the removal of the picture hooks and the damage around the back door. The work has not been completed and the property is on the market “as is”. The landlord has not therefore proven any loss in relation to these items and it is possible that the work will not be completed. It is not possible for the Tribunal to quantify any actual loss incurred by the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for wall repairs is dismissed. Tenant’s claim for the landlord’s failure to repair
The tenant claimed that there were issues with the power in the property and that it would cut out because fuses were overloaded. This caused her significant distress because she relies on electronic breathing apparatus when she sleeps.
She gave evidence as follows: a. After the landlord installed extractor fans and a heater in early 2024, all of the fuses were activated and she had no power. b. She notified the landlord who agreed to arrange for an electrician to inspect the property. When the tenant did not experience any further issues, she advised the landlord and the inspection was cancelled. c. After a period, various fuses switched off and the landlord agreed to have an inspection. The date did not suit the tenant and it was to be rescheduled but never happened. d. The tenant continued to experience issues and continued to complain to the landlord. e. One Friday afternoon the tenant found she had no power and urgently rang the landlord and then an electrician for assistance. f. She issued a 14-day notice to the landlord regarding the issue on 16 December 2024 but took no further steps as she vacated the property around this time.
The landlord provided documentary evidence as follows: a. On 2 February 2024 the tenant contacted the landlord regarding the power issue and it arranged for an electrician to visit. That day, once the power was back on, the tenant advised there was no need for an electrician. b. On 27 February 2024 the tenant made contact about the power issue again and the landlord arranged for an electrician to visit. The tenant cancelled this visit and advised that she believed the lights for her fish tank were causing it. c. No further power issues were reported to the landlord’s property manager’s online system and the routine inspections in June and September 2024 did not record any issues. d. On 16 December 2024 the tenant emailed to complain that power outages had been an ongoing issue and sent a 14-day notice.
It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. What timeframe is reasonable depends on the gravity of the problem. A tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The evidence before the Tribunal shows that the tenant complained to the landlord on three occasions. On the first two occasions, over a year ago, the landlord responded promptly and appropriately. No further action was taken because of a lack of further complaint by the tenant and confirmation from the tenant by email on 27 February 2024 that “The power is all good. I just haven’t turned on the lights back on on the fish tank as that was what was causing the overload.”
On the evidence before the Tribunal the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to repair the property in response to any specific complaint by the tenant.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145369 — Rent arrears at 42 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145369 — Rent arrears at 42 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?