What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223831 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 5223831?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $381.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.42 awarded to landlord; Vanity And Fairy Lights: $170.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223831?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11760125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223831 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 5223831?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $381.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.42 awarded to landlord; Vanity And Fairy Lights: $170.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223831?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11760125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Pearce Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223831 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223831 — net $954.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$381.86	Window repairs
Replacement vanity	$160.00	Replacement vanity
Repairs: vanity and fairy lights	$170.00	Repairs: vanity and fairy lights
Lock/key replacement	$215.42	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$954.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$954.28

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

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 said additional cleaning was required in the bathrooms, the kitchen, to remove a smell in the laundry and porch area, and to mop the floorboards in the whole house. The tenants said they left the house reasonably clean and tidy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos provided by the landlord taken at the end of the tenancy and I am not persuaded the tenants left the house in an unreasonable condition. This claim is dismissed.

The claim for a flea treatment is dismissed. The landlord had hearsay evidence. The tenants said there were no fleas during the tenancy or when they moved out. They did not have pets. The landlord does not have the better evidence, so the claim is not proved.

The tenants agreed they did not return the keys. They said they were only given keys to the front door at the start of the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim prove and there was no record of the keys given to the tenants. I have amended the claim to allow the cost of replacing the front door locks and keys.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. 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.

The tenants agreed to pay for the cost of removing the xmas lights and two broken windows. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount is proved and allowed.

There was a large oval mark on the vanity at the end of the tenancy. An inspection showed a case or holder in that shape sitting on the vanity during the tenancy. There was no mark at the start of the tenancy and the vanity looked to be in a good condition in the photos. It seems most likely to me there was careless damage during the tenancy. The cost of buying and installing a new vanity is reasonable and allowed.

The claims for repairing the kitchen floor, the kick boards and the rangehood are not allowed. The landlord has not proved the movement during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.

The claim for removing the broken Insinkerator is not allowed. This appliance was not working when the tenants moved in and had to be fixed during the tenancy. The tenants said the appliance was working at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the blades were broken. There is no supporting information from an appliance repair person. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not more persuaded by landlord’s evidence and the claim is dismissed.

I have considered the photos of the oil stains on the driveway and the claim for removal. The tenants said their van left the oil. There were a number of spots at the end of the tenancy but I am persuaded this was fair wear and tear. A driveway is made to have vehicles parked on it and sometimes vehicles drip oil. There is no evidence the tenants were careless. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names are published because there is public interest in names when tenants owe money at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223831 — net $954.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$381.86	Window repairs
Replacement vanity	$160.00	Replacement vanity
Repairs: vanity and fairy lights	$170.00	Repairs: vanity and fairy lights
Lock/key replacement	$215.42	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$954.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$954.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Siaosi Peniata and Onolina Peniata must pay [The landlord/s] $954.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

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 said additional cleaning was required in the bathrooms, the kitchen, to remove a smell in the laundry and porch area, and to mop the floorboards in the whole house. The tenants said they left the house reasonably clean and tidy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos provided by the landlord taken at the end of the tenancy and I am not persuaded the tenants left the house in an unreasonable condition. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for a flea treatment is dismissed. The landlord had hearsay evidence. The tenants said there were no fleas during the tenancy or when they moved out. They did not have pets. The landlord does not have the better evidence, so the claim is not proved.
The tenants agreed they did not return the keys. They said they were only given keys to the front door at the start of the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim prove and there was no record of the keys given to the tenants. I have amended the claim to allow the cost of replacing the front door locks and keys.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. 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.
The tenants agreed to pay for the cost of removing the xmas lights and two broken windows. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount is proved and allowed.
There was a large oval mark on the vanity at the end of the tenancy. An inspection showed a case or holder in that shape sitting on the vanity during the tenancy. There was no mark at the start of the tenancy and the vanity looked to be in a good condition in the photos. It seems most likely to me there was careless damage during the tenancy. The cost of buying and installing a new vanity is reasonable and allowed.
The claims for repairing the kitchen floor, the kick boards and the rangehood are not allowed. The landlord has not proved the movement during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for removing the broken Insinkerator is not allowed. This appliance was not working when the tenants moved in and had to be fixed during the tenancy. The tenants said the appliance was working at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the blades were broken. There is no supporting information from an appliance repair person. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not more persuaded by landlord’s evidence and the claim is dismissed.
I have considered the photos of the oil stains on the driveway and the claim for removal. The tenants said their van left the oil. There were a number of spots at the end of the tenancy but I am persuaded this was fair wear and tear. A driveway is made to have vehicles parked on it and sometimes vehicles drip oil. There is no evidence the tenants were careless. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names are published because there is public interest in names when tenants owe money at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223831 — Property damage at 14 Pearce Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223831 — Property damage at 14 Pearce Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants 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

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions