What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5244435 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 5244435?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244435?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5244435 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 5244435?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244435?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244435 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Max Nauma and Nofo Nauma must pay [The landlord/s] $22.44 from the bond calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenants were telephoned on the phone numbers provided but the phone calls went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with the application and notice of the hearing by email.
The hearing proceeded in their absence.

CLAIMS

The landlord has applied for: a. Compensation, b. payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy, and c. name suppression. 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. 1
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The carpets were stained. There were significant red stains in the lounge. The amount claimed for carpet cleaning of $660.00 is awarded. 1 ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) of the RTA.
The green bin, which the property manager said was provided by the Council during the tenancy was not cleaned. The landlord had it cleaned and the amount claimed of $29 is awarded.
The landlord said the surfaces in the kitchen were greasy and surfaces in the bathroom areas were covered in soap scum. The photographs provided show that there were surfaces throughout the premises that required a further wipe down to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the cleaning undertaken by the cleaner was limited to bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed for general cleaning was $426.94 and this is awarded in full.
The tenant did not remove two couches and an old table and other pieces of rubbish throughout the premises. The gardens required weeding. The amount claimed of $655 is awarded in full.
The amounts ordered are proved with invoices and pre-tenancy and post- tenancy photographs of the premises.

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. 2
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). 3
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). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
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. 6 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 6 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. 7
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls were damaged from what appeared to be items carelessly removed from them. The landlord claimed $391 for the damage to the walls which is to repaint the areas of damage. The amount claimed in awarded in full. b. The deck and outside table were damaged with white paint. The damage appears careless, and I award the amount claimed of $180.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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. There is no deduction for betterment and depreciation as the amounts ordered are for repairs only.

BOND

The landlord sought to limit the claim to the bond and accordingly I make an order for payment of the bond to off-set the amounts ordered and there is no order for the tenant to pay any additional money.

FILING FEE

The landlord did not seek the filing fee.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provision states: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord sought name suppression and as the landlord is wholly successful with the claim they are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244435 — Cleanliness

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244435 — Cleanliness

Order

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

CLAIMS

TENANCY?

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

BOND

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Order

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

CLAIMS

TENANCY?

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

BOND

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION