How much money was awarded in case 5160312?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160312?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11747604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5160312?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160312?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11747604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160312 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160312 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160312 — net $430.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$103.50	Cleaning
Repairs	$300.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$430.50
Bond	$3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.50

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $430.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $430.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,869.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] represented the tenants.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy which was in place between March 2023 and December 2024.

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

The landlord claims reimbursement of the $388.13 they paid to a cleaner to fully clean the house and remove some remaining items. [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence is that the property was a brand-new build prior to this tenancy and was not returned clean. In particular the kitchen, skirtings and bathrooms were not clean.

[The tenant/s] evidence is that they had thought they had left the property reasonably clean and tidy however agrees in looking at the landlord’s photos that there were some areas that required further attention. She says they were responsible tenants and were not provided with clear instructions on how pedantic the exit clean needed to be.

She also says that when they moved in the house was quite dusty and they had to clean it. 1 She agrees they should be liable for a reasonable amount towards the cleaning but considers the full amount not justified in light of the way the property was left.

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) directs 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.

The statutory requirement is that tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not an absolute standard, and the RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. 1 The evidence of the ingoing inspection video does not substantiate this claim.

Having assessed the evidence I find that there were a minor number of personal items remaining that should have been removed and a small amount of cleaning that was required to take the premise to a reasonably clean and tidy state. The invoice claimed documents 7.5 hours. I consider this amount of time unreasonable to get the property to the required statutory standard.

Accordingly, I direct that $103.50 be paid which equates to two hours of the cleaner’s rate plus GST. I find on the evidence provided that two hours is the reasonable amount of time it would take to rectify the breach of section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $1,600 for touch ups on the walls and $1,550 for the replacement of the induction cook top.

[The landlord’s representative]’s evidence is that there were scuff marks, paint peel and wall markings around the house which needed to be repaired and touched up. She also says that one of the hobs on the induction cook top was heavily marked, so much so that it was intended to be replaced by the owner. It has not yet been replaced as the property is for sale, however if it is not sold it will be replaced before it is tenanted. She considered it was intentional damage because it must have occurred with repeated misuse, for this reason an insurance claim was not made.

[The tenant/s] acknowledges there were some dents in her son’s room that they tried to patch up and agrees that the job they did was not professional, and so considers they should be liable for some compensation for the completion of that work. She views the rest of the damage as fair wear and tear over the course of the almost two-year tenancy.

She says there was no misuse of the cooktop, the marks occurred from regular use on that element because that was the most powerful one, so the one they used the most often. She says there were only a family of four and points out that the markings were so insignificant that they were not picked up at inspections. 2

She questions the quality of the cooktop and says that it was still fully functional, so she is unsure why it would need to be replaced.

To be successful in such a claim, 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 2 The landlord provided evidence that there was a fry pan over the damage at inspections so it could not be seen carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Fair wear and tear is the expected toll taken on a house that comes from usual living. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.

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.

Carelessness is not defined in the Act, but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.” 3

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.

Having assessed the evidence very carefully, I make the following findings: a. I agree that in conducting some of the repairs in the son’s bedroom, the work was not completed to a tradesman like standard and accordingly required more work to be repaired fully. 3 Mercier v Smith & Greenan14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93. b. I find that the wall damage throughout the rest of the property was an incident of fair wear and tear. It is all minor damage and a natural occurrence of usual living. c. There is no evidence that the damage to the cooktop was caused by anything more than fair wear and tear. It is usual markings that will occur on cooktops of this quality over years of use. d. The cooktop has also not yet been replaced and as such the landlord has not suffered any actual loss. Compensation is paid to rectify loss and as such cannot be awarded when there is no loss.

Accordingly, I direct that $300 be paid in compensation for the damage to the walls that exceeded fair wear and tear. The other claims are dismissed. Other orders

Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded in part with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application. As I consider the tenants successful in their defence to an extent, I also approve their claim for suppression orders.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160312 — net $430.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$103.50	Cleaning
Repairs	$300.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$430.50
Bond	$3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.50

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $430.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $430.50 [The tenant/s]: $2,869.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] represented the tenants.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy which was in place between March 2023 and December 2024.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $1,600 for touch ups on the walls and $1,550 for the replacement of the induction cook top.

She questions the quality of the cooktop and says that it was still fully functional, so she is unsure why it would need to be replaced.

Accordingly, I direct that $300 be paid in compensation for the damage to the walls that exceeded fair wear and tear. The other claims are dismissed. Other orders

Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded in part with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160312 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160312 — Property damage

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