What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5159671?

The tribunal order states: Marc Pledger to pay Tamzin Christian $1,551.59 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5159671?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $257.14 awarded to landlord; Stacker Doors: $967.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159671?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11764069-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5159671?

The tribunal order states: Marc Pledger to pay Tamzin Christian $1,551.59 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5159671?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $257.14 awarded to landlord; Stacker Doors: $967.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159671?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11764069-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50A Lyndfield Lane, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5159671 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159671 — net $1,551.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 October 2024	$257.14	Rent arrears to 26 October 2024
Repairs: Stacker doors	$967.45	Repairs: Stacker doors
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,551.59
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,551.59

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy has ended and both parties want the bond refunded. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and lawn mowing. The tenant does not agree to the claims. These are the landlord’s claims to prove.

Tenants must 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 landlord took photos at the end of the tenancy and had a detailed cleaning invoice. I can see that some additional cleaning was required. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me based on the evidence provided.

The landlord had some photos of the section and the gardens but none showing me the very long lawn at the end of the tenancy. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage to the garage, in two bedrooms, and to a kitchen cabinet. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord did not have a property condition report from the start of the tenancy and so she could not prove the garage, bedrooms and kitchen were damaged during this tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

There is a claim for a significant repair to a stacker door. The invoice details that one of the double glazed glass panels was removed and a repair attempted with the wrong glass. Repairs were subsequently needed to replace the backing rubbers, double glazing unit, and bead rubbers. The landlord said the door was undamaged at the start of the tenancy.

I have considered the photos, the invoice, and the verbal evidence. It seems most likely to me the door was not damaged at the start of the tenancy. This is because both the parties agree there were no issues with the door at the start of the tenancy.

The tenant said he was not aware that the door broke during the tenancy or that it had been repaired. To avoid liability, the tenant must prove he 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.

The detailed invoice states that someone attempted to repair the door and it was not done correctly. It seems most likely to me the resulting damage was either caused carelessly or intentionally. The amount of the repair is less than the insurance excess. This claim is proved and allowed. Other orders

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord has not made an application for suppression. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when tenant’s owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159671 — net $1,551.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 October 2024	$257.14	Rent arrears to 26 October 2024
Repairs: Stacker doors	$967.45	Repairs: Stacker doors
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,551.59
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,551.59

Order

Marc Pledger to pay Tamzin Christian $1,551.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5623356-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Tamzin Christian: $1,551.59 Marc Pledger: $1,448.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has ended and both parties want the bond refunded. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and lawn mowing. The tenant does not agree to the claims. These are the landlord’s claims to prove.
Tenants must 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 landlord took photos at the end of the tenancy and had a detailed cleaning invoice. I can see that some additional cleaning was required. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me based on the evidence provided.
The landlord had some photos of the section and the gardens but none showing me the very long lawn at the end of the tenancy. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage to the garage, in two bedrooms, and to a kitchen cabinet. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord did not have a property condition report from the start of the tenancy and so she could not prove the garage, bedrooms and kitchen were damaged during this tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for a significant repair to a stacker door. The invoice details that one of the double glazed glass panels was removed and a repair attempted with the wrong glass. Repairs were subsequently needed to replace the backing rubbers, double glazing unit, and bead rubbers. The landlord said the door was undamaged at the start of the tenancy.
I have considered the photos, the invoice, and the verbal evidence. It seems most likely to me the door was not damaged at the start of the tenancy. This is because both the parties agree there were no issues with the door at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said he was not aware that the door broke during the tenancy or that it had been repaired. To avoid liability, the tenant must prove he 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.
The detailed invoice states that someone attempted to repair the door and it was not done correctly. It seems most likely to me the resulting damage was either caused carelessly or intentionally. The amount of the repair is less than the insurance excess. This claim is proved and allowed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has not made an application for suppression. The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when tenant’s owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159671 — Property damage at 50A Lyndfield Lane, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159671 — Property damage at 50A Lyndfield Lane, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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