What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5186831?

The tribunal order states: Emily Rose Woodhouse, Rochelle Annie DAVIS and Emily Louise BOYD to

How much money was awarded in case 5186831?

Dishwasher: $48.30 awarded to landlord; Exterior Wall: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Wall: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Washer/Dryer Seal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5186831?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5186831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12214392-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5186831?

The tribunal order states: Emily Rose Woodhouse, Rochelle Annie DAVIS and Emily Louise BOYD to

How much money was awarded in case 5186831?

Dishwasher: $48.30 awarded to landlord; Exterior Wall: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Wall: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Washer/Dryer Seal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5186831?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5186831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12214392-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

57B Neil Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5186831 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5186831 — net $702.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: dishwasher	$48.30	Repairs: dishwasher
Repairs: exterior wall	$345.00	Repairs: exterior wall
Repairs: interior wall	$258.75	Repairs: interior wall
Washer/dryer seal	$50.00	Washer/dryer seal
Net award	$702.05
Bond	$3,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$702.05

Order

Emily Rose Woodhouse, Rochelle Annie DAVIS and Emily Louise BOYD to pay Jennifer Susan Walters $702.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (6481546-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Jennifer Susan Walters: $702.05 Emily Rose Woodhouse, Rochelle Annie DAVIS and Emily Louise BOYD: $2,617.95

Reasons

This is a cross application.
Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Walters attended for the landlord. Ms Woodhouse and Ms Boyd attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for damage to walls, a window and a washing machine, for cleaning costs, for the replacement of a dishwasher head, for refund of the bond, and for reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied to have their bond refunded.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of two years and ended at the end of the two years on 11 February 2025.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord stated there was dust on the skirting boards, the ceiling of the stove had not been cleaned, the hob was still dirty, cat biscuits had been left on the garage floor, the door frames were dirty and the rubbish bins hadn’t been emptied and cleaned.
The landlord produced photographs in support and a breakdown of the costs they are claiming for their time cleaning.
The landlord strikes me as an honest person and I can see that she has extremely high standards.
The tenant said they did a thorough clean at the end of the tenancy. They said that the oven was a self-cleaning oven and they cleaned it and the hob at the end of the tenancy. They said at the end of the tenancy they put the rubbish bin with a small amount of rubbish in it out on the curb for collection and they vacuumed the garage. They were not aware of any cat biscuits being left behind.
The tenant strikes me as an honest and responsible person and I accept her information that they conducted a thorough clean at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs the landlord produced show some residue on the stove top and some marks on the inside of the oven. They show a very small amount of rubbish inside a bin that in my opinion is not spotless, but given it is a rubbish bin, I do not consider it to be unreasonably dirty. The photographs show a close up of dust on a skirting board, a cloth with some marks on it and a filter from the heat pump with dust on it.
The standard for a tenant at the end of a tenancy is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. A responsible landlord may conduct a deep clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of a tenant. It is self- evident that any dirt left behind will not appear reasonably clean and tidy, but I consider that it is likely that a reasonably clean and tidy premises will have areas that are not perfectly clean.
When I look at the close-up photographs I can see that the premises were not absolutely perfect, but there is nothing that shows me the premises as a whole were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The wider photographs that show more of the premises show the premises to have been left well above a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I consider leaving a small amount of rubbish in a rubbish bin and putting it out for collection is not unreasonable at the end of a tenancy.
The claim for cleaning is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $302.00 for cleaning the carpet.
The landlord says they allowed the tenants to have a cat on the condition that the tenant cleaned the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The landlord obtained a quote from a professional carpet cleaner but then cleaned the carpet themselves using their own carpet cleaner.
There is nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) that specifically allows a landlord to prohibit pets. Whether a pet is appropriate for a tenancy or not is a matter to be decided on the facts of the tenancy and the pet. A landlord may therefore not “only allow a pet” on certain conditions which have no basis in the RTA. This applies to the landlord’s condition that a cat would only be permitted on the condition that the carpet was “commercially cleaned” at the end of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, whether a tenant is responsible for cleaning the carpet or not is determined in the same way that cleaning the rest of the premises is determined; the carpet must be left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred to allergens because of the cat, but did not provide any information that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the dishwasher head being missing from the dishwasher at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $48.30 for replacement. This is proved by consent.

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.
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 tenant accepts that during the tenancy her cat caused damage to the exterior of the premises. The landlord is claiming $345.00 for the repairs and the tenant accepts this amount. The claim and amount are proved.
The landlord claims that during the tenancy on 28 May 2024, the tenants left the window in the living room open, and during a severe storm a large amount of water was blown into the living room causing damage to an interior wall. The landlord is claiming $287.50 for repairs to the wall.
The tenant accepts that this occurred but says the damage was accidental and not careless or intentional.
In the case of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154, Justice Walker referred to accidental damage and carelessness as follows. “.. accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence.” That is to say, Justice Walker links accidental damage and carelessness.
In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
I am satisfied that “careless damage” under the RTA encompasses “accidental damage”. The tenants’ unintentional act comes within the meaning of “careless damage”.
This claim is proved.
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.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord is claiming $370.00 for a scratch to a window which she says was caused by the tenants. A photograph of the window after the end of the tenancy shows the scratch. No photograph from the start of the tenancy shows the window without the scratch.
The tenants deny scratching the window and say they did not know about the scratch until the landlord drew their attention to it after the end of the tenancy. The tenants drew my attention to the photograph being taken after the repairs to the wall were made. They say it is possible the person who repaired the wall scratched the window.
The landlord said that the tenant’s cat sat on the windowsill and it is possible the cat caused the scratch.
On the balance of probabilities I do not consider it proved the tenants caused the scratch to the window. I am not persuaded the scratch was definitely not there at the beginning of the tenancy, and I accept the possibility that the scratch may have been caused after their tenancy ended.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims the tenants damaged the washer/dryer door seal by causing a 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm tear to it. The landlord said the tear has not caused any deterioration in the function of the washer/dryer, but she has received advice that in time it will do so. The landlord is seeking $429.73 to replace the door seal.
The tenant stated that in the course of their tenancy which consisted of two women and a child for one period, and three women for the remainder, they used the washer/dryer on a regular basis. They say they only ever used the washer/dryer as it is intended to be used and they did not use any harsh products in it. They stated it is possible the seal is defective and that caused the tear.
I must determine whether the damage to a two-year old washer/dryer goes beyond fair wear. By a fine margin I consider it does. I must then determine whether the tenant has disproved careless use. Despite the possibility that the washer/dryer seal is defective, I consider it more likely that on one occasion the tenant somehow damaged the seal. On the balance of probabilities I am persuaded the tear to the seal is careless damage caused by the tenants.
However, I note that the function of the washer dryer has not been compromised, and I consider that the advice that it will do in future is speculative. I am not persuaded that a small tear to the seal will cause the seal to fail. I make a nominal award regarding the washer/dryer seal to account for the fact that the landlord has suffered some loss.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Both parties have made claims to the Tribunal and both claims are partially successful. In the circumstances of this case I determine that the costs of the respective parties’ filing fee should lie where they fall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5186831 — net $702.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: dishwasher	$48.30	Repairs: dishwasher
Repairs: exterior wall	$345.00	Repairs: exterior wall
Repairs: interior wall	$258.75	Repairs: interior wall
Washer/dryer seal	$50.00	Washer/dryer seal
Net award	$702.05
Bond	$3,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$702.05

Order

Emily Rose Woodhouse, Rochelle Annie DAVIS and Emily Louise BOYD to pay Jennifer Susan Walters $702.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (6481546-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Jennifer Susan Walters: $702.05 Emily Rose Woodhouse, Rochelle Annie DAVIS and Emily Louise BOYD: $2,617.95

Reasons

This is a cross application.
Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Walters attended for the landlord. Ms Woodhouse and Ms Boyd attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for damage to walls, a window and a washing machine, for cleaning costs, for the replacement of a dishwasher head, for refund of the bond, and for reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied to have their bond refunded.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of two years and ended at the end of the two years on 11 February 2025.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord stated there was dust on the skirting boards, the ceiling of the stove had not been cleaned, the hob was still dirty, cat biscuits had been left on the garage floor, the door frames were dirty and the rubbish bins hadn’t been emptied and cleaned.
The landlord produced photographs in support and a breakdown of the costs they are claiming for their time cleaning.
The landlord strikes me as an honest person and I can see that she has extremely high standards.
The tenant said they did a thorough clean at the end of the tenancy. They said that the oven was a self-cleaning oven and they cleaned it and the hob at the end of the tenancy. They said at the end of the tenancy they put the rubbish bin with a small amount of rubbish in it out on the curb for collection and they vacuumed the garage. They were not aware of any cat biscuits being left behind.
The tenant strikes me as an honest and responsible person and I accept her information that they conducted a thorough clean at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs the landlord produced show some residue on the stove top and some marks on the inside of the oven. They show a very small amount of rubbish inside a bin that in my opinion is not spotless, but given it is a rubbish bin, I do not consider it to be unreasonably dirty. The photographs show a close up of dust on a skirting board, a cloth with some marks on it and a filter from the heat pump with dust on it.
The standard for a tenant at the end of a tenancy is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. A responsible landlord may conduct a deep clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of a tenant. It is self- evident that any dirt left behind will not appear reasonably clean and tidy, but I consider that it is likely that a reasonably clean and tidy premises will have areas that are not perfectly clean.
When I look at the close-up photographs I can see that the premises were not absolutely perfect, but there is nothing that shows me the premises as a whole were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The wider photographs that show more of the premises show the premises to have been left well above a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I consider leaving a small amount of rubbish in a rubbish bin and putting it out for collection is not unreasonable at the end of a tenancy.
The claim for cleaning is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $302.00 for cleaning the carpet.
The landlord says they allowed the tenants to have a cat on the condition that the tenant cleaned the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The landlord obtained a quote from a professional carpet cleaner but then cleaned the carpet themselves using their own carpet cleaner.
There is nothing in the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) that specifically allows a landlord to prohibit pets. Whether a pet is appropriate for a tenancy or not is a matter to be decided on the facts of the tenancy and the pet. A landlord may therefore not “only allow a pet” on certain conditions which have no basis in the RTA. This applies to the landlord’s condition that a cat would only be permitted on the condition that the carpet was “commercially cleaned” at the end of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, whether a tenant is responsible for cleaning the carpet or not is determined in the same way that cleaning the rest of the premises is determined; the carpet must be left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred to allergens because of the cat, but did not provide any information that the carpet was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
This claim is not proved.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the dishwasher head being missing from the dishwasher at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $48.30 for replacement. This is proved by consent.

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.
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 tenant accepts that during the tenancy her cat caused damage to the exterior of the premises. The landlord is claiming $345.00 for the repairs and the tenant accepts this amount. The claim and amount are proved.
The landlord claims that during the tenancy on 28 May 2024, the tenants left the window in the living room open, and during a severe storm a large amount of water was blown into the living room causing damage to an interior wall. The landlord is claiming $287.50 for repairs to the wall.
The tenant accepts that this occurred but says the damage was accidental and not careless or intentional.
In the case of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154, Justice Walker referred to accidental damage and carelessness as follows. “.. accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence.” That is to say, Justice Walker links accidental damage and carelessness.
In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
I am satisfied that “careless damage” under the RTA encompasses “accidental damage”. The tenants’ unintentional act comes within the meaning of “careless damage”.
This claim is proved.
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.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord is claiming $370.00 for a scratch to a window which she says was caused by the tenants. A photograph of the window after the end of the tenancy shows the scratch. No photograph from the start of the tenancy shows the window without the scratch.
The tenants deny scratching the window and say they did not know about the scratch until the landlord drew their attention to it after the end of the tenancy. The tenants drew my attention to the photograph being taken after the repairs to the wall were made. They say it is possible the person who repaired the wall scratched the window.
The landlord said that the tenant’s cat sat on the windowsill and it is possible the cat caused the scratch.
On the balance of probabilities I do not consider it proved the tenants caused the scratch to the window. I am not persuaded the scratch was definitely not there at the beginning of the tenancy, and I accept the possibility that the scratch may have been caused after their tenancy ended.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims the tenants damaged the washer/dryer door seal by causing a 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm tear to it. The landlord said the tear has not caused any deterioration in the function of the washer/dryer, but she has received advice that in time it will do so. The landlord is seeking $429.73 to replace the door seal.
The tenant stated that in the course of their tenancy which consisted of two women and a child for one period, and three women for the remainder, they used the washer/dryer on a regular basis. They say they only ever used the washer/dryer as it is intended to be used and they did not use any harsh products in it. They stated it is possible the seal is defective and that caused the tear.
I must determine whether the damage to a two-year old washer/dryer goes beyond fair wear. By a fine margin I consider it does. I must then determine whether the tenant has disproved careless use. Despite the possibility that the washer/dryer seal is defective, I consider it more likely that on one occasion the tenant somehow damaged the seal. On the balance of probabilities I am persuaded the tear to the seal is careless damage caused by the tenants.
However, I note that the function of the washer dryer has not been compromised, and I consider that the advice that it will do in future is speculative. I am not persuaded that a small tear to the seal will cause the seal to fail. I make a nominal award regarding the washer/dryer seal to account for the fact that the landlord has suffered some loss.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Both parties have made claims to the Tribunal and both claims are partially successful. In the circumstances of this case I determine that the costs of the respective parties’ filing fee should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5186831 — Property damage at 57B Neil Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5186831 — Property damage at 57B Neil Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

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