What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191951 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 5191951?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains/Drapes: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Dryer Filter: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Power Charges: $22.00 awarded to landlord; Shipping Container Storage: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191951?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12437557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191951 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 5191951?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains/Drapes: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Dryer Filter: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Power Charges: $22.00 awarded to landlord; Shipping Container Storage: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191951?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12437557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191951 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191951 — net $380.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power charges	$22.00	Power charges
Dryer filter	$23.00	Dryer filter
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Curtains/drapes	$100.00	Curtains/drapes
Shipping container storage	$135.00	Shipping container storage
Net award	$380.00
Bond	$2,340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$380.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191951 — net $380.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power charges	$22.00	Power charges
Dryer filter	$23.00	Dryer filter
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Curtains/drapes	$100.00	Curtains/drapes
Shipping container storage	$135.00	Shipping container storage
Net award	$380.00
Bond	$2,340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$380.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $380.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $380.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,960.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both tenants and the landlord attended the hearing.
This tenancy began on 18 October 2023. The parties do not agree on the date the tenancy ended. The tenants regard 7 November 2024 as the end date, whereas the landlord states the tenancy ended on 30 November 2024. The applications
There are two applications before the Tribunal. The tenants seek the return of their bond. This is application number 5191951. In their application, the tenants note the landlord had asked them to pay for new curtains, as the old curtains had some mould at the bottom. They were also asked to pay for additional cleaning, as the landlord was not satisfied with the way they had cleaned, identifying the top of the cupboards, light fixtures and top of the air conditioning unit as requiring cleaning. The landlord claimed a total of $2,200.00 from the bond for mould damage, replacing the torn drape, and cleaning services. The tenants were prepared to replace the torn drape, but consider the mould to be a natural cause. The landlord then made other claims for missing and broken items (sink plug, vacuum cleaner, washing machine, heater), for which they do not accept liability.
The landlord has filed a cross application (number 5215053) claiming payment from the bond, electricity charges, and compensation for cleaning, replacement of a heater, dryer filter, washing machine, and curtains. The landlord also claims compensation for allowing the tenants to place their shipping container outside the premises. The landlord provided documentary and photographic evidence.
Both parties gave oral evidence and submissions at the hearing. The tenants presented documentary and photographic/video evidence on the day of the hearing. The hearing was adjourned part-heard and concluded on the papers to allow the landlord additional time to provide further written submissions in response to the evidence provided on the day of the hearing.
The landlord set out detailed submissions in response, noting how she had helped the tenants settle into New Zealand, wrote reference letters for them, and how disappointed she was with the condition of the premises at the end.
At the hearing, the tenants accepted liability for the $22.00 sought by the landlord for power charges, and $23.00 for replacement of the dryer filter. These are recorded in the table above.
The main questions to be determined by the Tribunal are as follows: • When did the tenancy end? • Did the parties reach agreement that the landlord was to be paid $2,200.00 from the bond? • Is the landlord entitled to claim compensation for the following: i. Cleaning ii. Washing machine replacement iii. Curtain replacement iv. Heater replacement v. Shipping container storage vi. Missing items
The landlord also requests that the Tribunal fine the tenants for giving misleading information regarding an agreement reached concerning the deduction of the bond.
These issues are considered below. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Taking into account the above principles, the issues raised in the two applications are considered below.

When did the tenancy end?

This tenancy was for a fixed term, due to end on 17 October 2024. The tenancy continued beyond this date. As noted earlier, the tenants regard 7 November 2024 as the end date, whereas the landlord states it is 30 November 2024. The landlord bases this later date on the date the tenants’ shipping container was removed from the premises.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenancy ended on 7 November 2024. In making this finding, I rely on the written statement provided by the tenants which records that the parties have mutually agreed that the tenancy is to end on 7 November 2024. The evidence also shows that the tenants vacated the premises and returned the keys to the landlord on this date, during the final inspection. This was effectively the date the landlord regained possession. I note the landlord does not claim rent beyond this date. The landlord’s evidence also shows that she was cleaning the premises between 7 and 15 November 2024. So, she cannot claim that the tenancy extended beyond 7 November 2024.
Accepting that the shipping container was on land that formed part of the tenancy premises, the fact that the tenants did not remove it by 7 November 2024 does not then extend the tenancy. However, the question of whether the landlord ought to be compensated for the tenants not removing all their goods from the premises at the end of the tenancy (by leaving the shipping container behind), as required under section 40(1)(e)(ii), is considered below.

Did the parties reach agreement regarding the bond?

I find on the evidence that the parties did initially discuss and agree that the landlord was to receive $2,200.00 from the bond at the end of the tenancy, as shown in the text exchange between the parties (as provided by the landlord). However, on the basis of the evidence given at the hearing, I accept that, after this discussion, the tenants later re-considered their position.
The tenants are clear in their oral evidence that they felt pressured to agree to this amount being paid to the landlord. Furthermore, the tenants did not sign the required form authorising the Bond Centre to pay $2,200.00 from the bond to the landlord. The fact that they did not sign the bond form to this effect indicates they no longer wished to compensate the landlord for the amount claimed from the bond.
Therefore, when the evidence is considered as a whole, I find the landlord has not established the claim to $2,200.00 from the bond.
As the landlord has not established this claim, there are no grounds for the Tribunal “fining” the tenants (or awarding exemplary damages). I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the tenants have been misleading about the discussions concerning the bond.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims the tenants have been in breach of this obligation, seeking cleaning costs. The premises was furnished, and the landlord also claims compensation for items alleged to be missing at the end of the tenancy.
In terms of the missing items, the landlord’s original application did not include a claim for items such as missing blankets, so this will not be determined.
In terms of the claim for cleaning costs, this is considered below. Cleaning
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily pristine, or to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 Therefore, a landlord may have some additional work to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant 5 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 6
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that, for the most part, the tenants have met the standard required at the end of the tenancy. However, there were some areas that required further cleaning. For this additional cleaning, the landlord is to be compensated, in the amount of $100.00. The balance is not the responsibility of the tenants. Therefore, while acknowledging the evidence of further cleaning being done after the tenancy ended, the landlord can reasonably expect that some additional cleaning may be required to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage
The landlord claims the following: • Replacement of curtains and drapes: $2,418.00 • Washing machine replacement:$855.00 • Heater replacement: $50.00 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Richards v Scally (above) 6 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Legal principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
The landlord has insurance for tenant damage, and states the insurance excess is $500.00.
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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Curtains and drapes
The landlord’s claim is that 6 curtains and drapes were damaged and had to be replaced. She states the tenants caused them to become mouldy, by ignoring an agreement to keep the HRV system switched on throughout the day. The landlord feels the tenants did so to save power. She has observed that the windows were not open during the day. The landlord accepts that the tenants did not deliberately cause the mould on the curtains and drapes, but had been negligent and therefore, were in breach of the agreement. The landlord refers to the agreement reached with the tenants that $2,200.00 was to be deducted from the bond.
The landlord obtained a quote from [Drape Business] but states in her evidence at the hearing that she did not purchase the curtains and drapes through this company, as she could not afford the quoted price of $4,030.00. Hence, the deduction of 60% of the quoted price. The landlord states she did not immediately replace the curtains but tried to clean them herself. She purchased chemicals and cleaned them, but the curtains were destroyed/damaged because of the chemicals used. She then purchased the curtains from [Country], and now claims $2,456.00, including the airfare. She states the total cost in New Zealand dollars for the curtains was $654.00. They have now been installed in the property.
In response, the tenants state they tried their best to remove the mould. They accept liability for one of the torn curtains, and explained that they agreed to the $2,200.00 bond payment under duress. They kept the house ventilated and opened the windows. During the day, when no one is home, they do not open the windows. Both tenants leave early in the morning for work, and the children attend school. They are only home by 5:30pm or 6:00pm. Since no one is home, they do not leave the HRV system switched on. They refer to their video evidence of the condition of the premises, stating that this shows they kept the place clean and tidy.
Overall, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they ventilated the house when they could. It is reasonable for the tenants to close their windows, for security reasons, when they are not home. The landlord cannot expect them to leave the windows open during the day, when they are at work. It is also not reasonable for the landlord to expect the tenants to keep the HRV system switched on during the day, since the tenants pay for the electricity and not the landlord.
However, the evidence shows that, despite the tenants’ best efforts, the curtains became mouldy. The landlord acknowledges that the curtains were not brand new. She did not purchase her curtains through [Drape Business], so she cannot claim for curtains based on this quotation. Furthermore, her evidence is that she tried to clean the curtains herself, and they became damaged due to the chemicals used. So, there is evidence that the landlord has contributed to the damage to the curtains. The tenants cannot be held responsible for damage resulting from the landlord’s attempts to remove the mould from the curtains.
The landlord also cannot expect to be reimbursed for the cost of travelling to [Country] to purchase the curtains and drapes. The cost incurred by the landlord for purchasing new curtains/drapes was $654.00. As the curtains/drapes were around 7 to 8 years old, they would need to be depreciated. Using the IRD general depreciation rates, curtains and drapes have an estimated useful life of 8 years. So, the landlord’s curtains and drapes were near the end of that period.
Taking all these factors into account, noting that the tenants also accept some responsibility for one of the torn curtains, I consider it reasonable for the landlord to be compensated $100.00 for the curtains and drapes. Washing machine
The landlord claims the tenants damaged the washing machine and seeks $855.60, being 60% of the washing machine replacement cost. In her evidence at the hearing, the landlord states the new tenants (who moved in after the current tenants) informed her that the inside of the washing machine was all black and it was not working. She believes the washing machine was damaged because of the mould.
In response, the tenants’ evidence is that the washing machine was working on the day they were moving out. They had been cleaning and used the washing machine to wash clothing and linen. The tenants also refer to evidence from the new tenants that the washing machine that was replaced is different from the one being claimed by the landlord. They state the landlord had replaced the washing machine with a [Brand] washing machine, which was valued around $350.00 brand new. Yet the landlord was claiming $855.60, which was 60% of the cost of the [Brand] washing machine, as shown in an invoice for $1,426.00.
In response, the landlord states the new tenants moved in on 10 November. She accepts she did not get a technician to repair the washing machine. The new tenants wanted it to be replaced. She tried to clean the mould. The washing machine was 7 to 8 years old. She was claiming 60% of the value of a [Brand] washing machine, which she was using herself.
In her final written submissions, the landlord has noted that the tenants had provided information about a second hand [Brand] washing machine from [online], rather than a new one. The original (broken) washing machine was a [Brand], which was $1,399.00 to replace brand new. As the machine was 7 or 8 years old, the landlord was prepared to accept 60%, claiming $839.00.
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the landlord has been unable to establish, with sufficient evidence, that the tenants are responsible for damage to the washing machine. I accept their evidence, which I found to be credible, that they were using it up to the time they moved out and that it was functional. The landlord has not obtained the opinion of a technician and so the question of whether it was repairable is unknown. The landlord has also replaced it with a different washing machine to the one that is being claimed. For these reasons, this application is dismissed. Heater
The landlord claims $50.00 for an electric heater that she states was broken by the tenants. The landlord’s evidence is that the heater was 7 to 8 years old. She believes the heater was in a good condition when the tenants moved in. It was no longer working. On the other hand, the tenants state they had never used the heater and are not responsible for breaking it.
Overall, the likely cause of the heater no longer functioning is unclear. As the evidence is evenly balanced, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the claim, which is therefore dismissed. Shipping container
The landlord claims compensation for the tenants parking a shipping container at the premises from the start of the tenancy until 30 November 2024, when it was removed. She has calculated that the tenants ought to be charged $36.00 per week from 18 October 2023 to 30 November 2024, and claims $2,160.00.
In her evidence at the hearing, the landlord states that in the beginning, she got on well with the tenants. They were given permission to leave the shipping container there, and at the time, she accepts they were not asked to pay a fee. However, the container was still there after the tenancy ended. Her neighbour had two shipping containers on their land and were charging $45.00 per container per week (evidence was provided).
The tenants state the landlord indicated they were able to place the shipping container there for free, and they tried to resell it at the end of the tenancy. This was a 20-foot shipping container, which they eventually had to give away for free. They agree that it was removed by 30 November 2024. The landlord had said that if they did not agree to release the bond in full to her, she would ask them for a fee of $45.00 a week for 60 weeks.
The landlord provided detailed submissions following the hearing, setting out her reasons for seeking the market rate for the tenants parking the shipping container on the land, including the costs she incurred for the property, such as rates and insurance. There was also the additional time and effort to give the tenants access to the land.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I find that the landlord gave the tenants permission to place the shipping container at the premises, and there was no agreement that they were to pay separately for storing it there. A landlord cannot later claim this cost from the tenants. However, it is accepted that once the tenancy had ended, on 7 November 2024, the tenants ought to have removed the container. This is because, under section 40(1)(e)(ii), tenants are required to remove all their goods from the premises at the end of the tenancy. By leaving the shipping container behind, they are in breach of this requirement.
Accordingly, the landlord is to be compensated for the time that the container remained on the premises after the tenancy ended. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the neighbouring property owner had been receiving $45.00 per week for each container. The tenants are to compensate the landlord for the period from 7 November to 30 November 2024, which is around 3 weeks, at $45.00 per week. The total compensation payable to the landlord is $135.00, which is awarded above. Name suppression and filing fee
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success with their claims. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
As each party has had some success with their application, there is not order for reimbursement of the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191951 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191951 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Did the parties reach agreement regarding the bond?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Did the parties reach agreement regarding the bond?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions