What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5194196 about?

The tribunal order states: Ross Bruggemann and Nicola Reeves are to pay Oliver Phillips and Liron Allon

How much money was awarded in case 5194196?

Cleaning: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $587.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5194196?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5194196?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175019-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5194196 about?

The tribunal order states: Ross Bruggemann and Nicola Reeves are to pay Oliver Phillips and Liron Allon

How much money was awarded in case 5194196?

Cleaning: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $587.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5194196?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5194196?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12175019-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 19 Champion Street, Edgeware, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5194196 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5194196 — net $957.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$587.42	Window repairs
Drycleaning curtains	$370.00	Drycleaning curtains
Net award	$957.42
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$957.42

Order

Ross Bruggemann and Nicola Reeves are to pay Oliver Phillips and Liron Allon $957.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (6469295-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Oliver Phillips and Liron Allon: $957.42 Ross Bruggemann and Nicola Reeves: $2,842.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
At the end of the tenancy the premises was not relet but sold.

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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An invoice for $332.30 was submitted to establish the loss. No further evidence was provided.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. 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. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no landlord evidence, apart from the invoice, to support the claim and based on the submissions from both parties, there appears a higher expectation from the landlords than what the tenants considered reasonable clean. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The landlord incurred a drycleaning cost of $370.00 for curtains. This was accepted by the tenants and is ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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
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.
A window was broken during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants’ accepted liability for the damage. The invoice of $587.42 establishes the loss and this is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlords also claimed $2,510.00 for a stained driveway. No actual cost had been incurred and only one photo was provided. This claim had two challenges.
The first was the driveway was not remediated and the property has since been sold with the driveway “as is”. There is no requirement for the landlords (as vendors) to attend to the driveway stain. There has been no direct cost incurred. Any “loss” in sale price due to the stain is difficult to establish.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
No loss has been established for any driveway stain.
The second challenge, if the first was overcome, is establishing tenant liability for such a stain. This would require more than one photo to evidence careless or intentional damage, such that the tenant would be liable. The stain appears consistent with a non-oil leak from a parked car (as claimed) stationary on the driveway.
For both reasons, the claim of $2,510.00 compensation is dismissed.
Given the limited success of the application, I make no order regarding the filing fee. That cost remains with the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5194196 — net $957.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$587.42	Window repairs
Drycleaning curtains	$370.00	Drycleaning curtains
Net award	$957.42
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$957.42

Order

Ross Bruggemann and Nicola Reeves are to pay Oliver Phillips and Liron Allon $957.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (6469295-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Oliver Phillips and Liron Allon: $957.42 Ross Bruggemann and Nicola Reeves: $2,842.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
At the end of the tenancy the premises was not relet but sold.

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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An invoice for $332.30 was submitted to establish the loss. No further evidence was provided.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. 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. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no landlord evidence, apart from the invoice, to support the claim and based on the submissions from both parties, there appears a higher expectation from the landlords than what the tenants considered reasonable clean. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The landlord incurred a drycleaning cost of $370.00 for curtains. This was accepted by the tenants and is ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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
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.
A window was broken during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants’ accepted liability for the damage. The invoice of $587.42 establishes the loss and this is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlords also claimed $2,510.00 for a stained driveway. No actual cost had been incurred and only one photo was provided. This claim had two challenges.
The first was the driveway was not remediated and the property has since been sold with the driveway “as is”. There is no requirement for the landlords (as vendors) to attend to the driveway stain. There has been no direct cost incurred. Any “loss” in sale price due to the stain is difficult to establish.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
No loss has been established for any driveway stain.
The second challenge, if the first was overcome, is establishing tenant liability for such a stain. This would require more than one photo to evidence careless or intentional damage, such that the tenant would be liable. The stain appears consistent with a non-oil leak from a parked car (as claimed) stationary on the driveway.
For both reasons, the claim of $2,510.00 compensation is dismissed.
Given the limited success of the application, I make no order regarding the filing fee. That cost remains with the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5194196 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 19 Champion Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5194196 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 19 Champion Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

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