How much money was awarded in case 5242956?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Firewood: $395.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242956?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12093709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5242956?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Firewood: $395.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242956?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12093709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242956 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242956 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242956 — net $782.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Laundry Tub damage	$150.00	Laundry Tub damage
Cleaning: Curtain cleaning	$90.00	Cleaning: Curtain cleaning
Replace missing firewood	$395.00	Replace missing firewood
Lawns and Garden work: Gardening and rubbish removal	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work: Gardening and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$782.00
Bond	$1,057.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$782.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Helen McCready’s application is dismissed.

Helen McCready and Reuben McCready to pay [Landlord 2] $782.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,057.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [Landlord 2]: $782.00 Helen McCready Reuben McCready: $275.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McCready was the only tenant who attended and she attended with a support person. [Landlord 1] was added with the consent of the parties. He is a joint owner of the property with [Landlord 2] and he is also involved with the day to day running and management of the tenancy with [Landlord 2] as a landlord.

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

Ms McCready has made claims under the Privacy Act and wants her bond back. The landlords’ application Firewood

The landlord says that at the start of the tenancy there was 4m cubed of wood for the tenant to use. This was to be replaced at the end of the tenancy. This is recorded in the tenancy agreement.

The landlords say that it was not restocked and only 1m cubed was there at the end of the tenancy. They claim for 3 metres cubed of replacement wood at the cost of $395.

The tenant does not dispute that they did not restock the wood but says that they had used about half of what was there so used 2 metres cubed. She says that it was not possible for wood to be delivered due to wood in the driveway. The landlord disputes that.

Firewood is an outgoing and therefore, the tenant is responsible for paying for its use during the tenancy.

The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that approximately 4m cubed of firewood was provided to the tenant at the outset of the tenancy and that 3m cubed has been used. The landlord has the best evidence of this as it is recorded in the tenancy agreement and it is supported by a measurement of the wood area of wood used and a photograph.

I am not satisfied that the landlord blocked access in some way to stop wood from being delivered. I am satisfied that 1 metre cubed remained.

The landlord has not proven the amount they claim to have spent replenishing the firewood, as they have not repurchased the firewood and have only a quote. However, the Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that promotes the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.

In the circumstances of this case, I consider it fair and reasonable that the tenant pay the landlord $395.00 to cover the cost of replacing the firewood used by them during the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. Curtains

The landlord says she spent 9 hours cleaning mould off curtains and numerous photographs were provided. An ingoing property inspection shows the curtains as being recorded in a reasonable condition. The tenant says she did not realise she had to do this as it was not pointed out to her at an inspection. She says they were not like this at the end of the tenancy and the curtains are old.

I find that in leaving the curtains in this manner they were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

Tenants have an obligation to return the premises in a "reasonably clean" condition, and landlords are not under an obligation to point out everything that may not be unreasonably clean and tidy. While it is certainly sensible for the parties to communicate about what specifically is expected at the end of the tenancy this is not an obligation. Age can be a relevant factor when it comes to whether something is reasonably clean, but in the circumstances of the issue causing the need for cleaning here, I do not consider this relevant here.

I am not satisfied the landlord gave the tenant any form of assurance that the curtains would be accepted as reasonably clean and tidy in this condition. I am also satisfied from the timing of the photographs they were like this when the tenant moved out. The ingoing inspection report records the condition of the curtains as acceptable.

The landlord say they cleaned the curtains themselves and that it took 9 hours for this.

I order the sum of $90 which allows for 3 hours of work at $30 an hour. This is a sum I consider reasonable for the tenant to pay as it is more commensurate with the cleaning required taking into account the evidence before me. Clean up of the garden

The landlord claims $667 in respect of gardening work and rubbish removal. Some photographs were provided which were taken at the end of the tenancy. They show a number of overgrown areas and some rubbish within the garden.

The landlord says they did two hours of work on two occasions himself and then the property has been re-tenanted with no further work being done. The work claimed in the quote provided has not been done. Some of the rubbish has been moved but not yet disposed of.

The tenant says that certain items pictured in the garden do not belong to her and that elements of the garden were overgrown or not tidy at the start of the tenancy – some being more “cottage” or woodland type areas. She said she did some work in advance of moving out but it was difficult in the timescales involved. She also said she had problems getting to a garden bed behind wood stacked by the landlord but I do not consider that to be credible.

I accept that at the end of the tenancy sections of the garden were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

The photographs shown prove this in sections of the garden but the claim to the extent made by the landlords is not reasonable.

One difficulty for the landlord here is the fact limited work has only been done to date and a new tenant is in place.

Under the RTA both landlord and tenant have obligations regarding cleanliness and tidiness at the beginning and end of a tenancy - Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

If a landlord re-lets a property to a new tenant without doing cleaning/gardening said to be required, yet claims the outgoing tenant left it in an unreasonable condition, this undermines their claim. This is because if the landlord did not undertake the work in the garden before re-letting, they may have breached the RTA themselves by failing to provide the new tenant with property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This suggests either, where no work is done before reletting, that the property was already reasonably tidy/clean (or where some work has been done that that work alone was sufficient to bring the premises up to the required standard) or the landlord is breached their duty to their new tenants.

The fact the property has been relet after the landlord’s initial gardening work was done suggests there was no real problem after their initial four hours of work had been done or the landlord did not care enough to remedy the position which weakens a claim that the condition of the garden after that work remained beyond "reasonable".

The landlord cannot prove loss in the form of the quote provided because the work has not in fact been done/complete. Work has not been done and months have passed since the tenancy ended. Gardens continue to grow and this breaks the chain of causation between the breach and the alleged loss. There is also a lack of pre-tenancy photographs showing me the condition of the garden at the start of the tenancy so the level of restoration required in respect of each area pictured by the landlord is difficult to assess.

That said, I do however accept that the landlord has undertaken some garden work themselves and consider that a reasonable amount to award is $120 being 4 hours at $30.

This is a sum I consider reasonable on the basis of the evidence before me. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises? – Washing machine cupboard

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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.

The landlord says that the tenant’s washing machine caused damage to the laundry cabinet because it had a slow leak.

The landlord acknowledges that at the start of the tenancy there was a leak that they accept was an accident – because it was just the one time issue that was resolved, but there was then a continuing problem. They say this would have been from the tenant not attaching their outlet hose correctly. They say there is an outlet pipe that needed to be unscrewed and pulled up for the washing machine outlet hose to be installed – then the join re-tightened.

Separately to this, and the basis of the claim, they say that the tenants washing machine hose connections to the hot and cold inlets have leaked over time and this has caused damage to the bottom of the cupboard which is made of laminated particle board.

The landlord says that he identified the inlet hoses leaking on an inspection at the end of July and then pointed out the issue again in August. A text reminder was sent in September and the hose leak was pointed out again a few days later at an inspection in September. In November the landlord saw that new hoses had been fitted and the cupboard was now dry.

The tenant says that when they started the washing machine for the first time they just put the outlet hose directly in the tub. When the water discharged it overflowed from a join in the pipe. This issue was resolved. They did not notice other water coming from hoses and they dispute the issue was their hose.

It is the responsibility of tenants to ensure that their washing machines are correctly installed. The landlord accepts that the first incident was an accident for which the tenant has no liability. In any event I am not satisfied that this was not caused by a maintenance issue with the joins in the pipes not being tight enough at the start of the tenancy - so the tenant would not be liable for this event.

I accept that there was an ongoing leak caused by the inlet hoses and that damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I prefer the landlord’s explanation of the events. They are concise and detailed and supported by some text messages which supports the credibility of their position.

I do not need to consider it if this is intentional or careless damage because the sum claimed is well below the insurance excess and below the cap of 4 weeks rent.

I must consider depreciation and 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.

The cabinet was said to be in the region of 7 years old. I consider that a laminated particle board cabinet in a damp area, exposed to water in a laundry tub would likely have an expected lifespan of around 10 years. This is because this type of material is very susceptible to moisture, especially so in laundry areas where humidity, steam, and spills are more common. Laundry cupboards are not expected to last forever, especially in high-use and moist environments.

The cabinet had also been exposed to water from the earlier leak event (for which the tenant is not liable) in the tenancy.

The landlord has not yet done the work and has only provided quotes. This means that the landlord is unable to prove their actual loss. However, they say they will replace it once the Tribunal proceedings are complete.

Taking into account all of the above factors, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to pay $150 in relation to this damage. The tenant’s claims

The tenant (Ms McCready alone) sought compensation and an apology for breaches of the Privacy Act. This is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and so that claim is dismissed.

She seeks return of the bond. The bond has been refunded to take into account the landlord’s success. Filing fee and suppression

The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim so I award reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord seeks suppression and has been substantially successful and so I award this (s95A, RTA).

The tenant also seeks suppression but has not been wholly or substantially successful and I see no other reason to order suppression of their identifying details and so this is not awarded to the tenants.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242956 — net $782.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Laundry Tub damage	$150.00	Laundry Tub damage
Cleaning: Curtain cleaning	$90.00	Cleaning: Curtain cleaning
Replace missing firewood	$395.00	Replace missing firewood
Lawns and Garden work: Gardening and rubbish removal	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work: Gardening and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$782.00
Bond	$1,057.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$782.00