What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279559 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 5279559?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279559?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12301650-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279559 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 5279559?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279559?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12301650-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62B Cleveland Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279559 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $624.25 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $179.40 [The tenant/s]: $444.85

Reasons

[Tenant name suppressed], for both tenants, and the landlord’s representative attended the hearing held remotely.
The parties disagree about two claims the landlord makes from the bond.
The rest of the bond has already been refunded to the tenants by agreement after a mediation conference. Extra cleaning
A tenant is required to leave premises “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” at the end of a tenancy; section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The house does not have to be spotless or pristine, or necessarily returned to the same standard it was presented in.
If a landlord wishes to clean the premises to a standard higher than reasonably clean (for example, for re-tenanting), then they are free to do so - at their own cost and effort.
Both parties supplied photos.
My decision is that the tenants left the premises more than reasonably clean.
In the main, the house was extremely clean and tidy. In fact, I have rarely seen such a high standard of tenant cleaning.
I agree that the ceramic stovetop showed wipe-marks of what looks to be cleaning product residue and other photos revealed a couple of spots on a roller blind, some grass clippings inside the green-waste bin and two or three baked- on bits on an oven tray. These are examples of a landlord preferring a spotless or pristine result.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim. Cleaning product damage to the paint in one corner in the kitchen
The tenants accept that the corner of a painted wall under the top kitchen cupboards was damaged by a bleach ingredient in a cleaning product they used.
The bleached section is visible and affects an area large enough to make it reasonable for the landlord to repair it.
The tenants accept liability, and this is the correct legal outcome as the damage is more than “wear and tear”. Section 49B RTA.
Wear and tear is anything that happens as a normal part of living in the premises.
The landlord claims $396.75 based on an invoice for repainting the area. It was clarified in the hearing that the total invoice of $448.50 included work to repair another small area behind the kitchen tap. The landlord does not seek compensation for this repair (the paint had peeled slightly).
Two walls were fully repainted to avoid a “patched” look. The landlord pointed out that the house was brand new before this tenancy, so the aim was to return the walls to the ingoing condition.
This tenancy was of two years duration. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in if the corner had not been damaged.
In this case, the kitchen walls situated directly above the benchtop would have been showing signs of the normal wear and tear to be expected over two years of normal kitchen activities such as food preparation and washing dishes. The walls are not protected by a splashback except directly behind the cooktop.
It is not fair to apportion the invoice as 88% relating to the repair of the bleached corner and 12% for the water damage behind the tap. Some of the cost is probably a standard call-out charge so should be shared equally. However, the bleached area is larger than the water damage so it is fair the tenants contribute more than 50%.
I award the landlord two-thirds of the full amount of the invoice ($299.00) minus depreciation to account for normal wear and tear of 40% 1 ($119.60) leaving an award of $179.40. Filing fees and suppression of names
Both parties have partially succeeded so I leave the filing fees as paid and suppress both parties’ names.
The bond will be refunded directly from the Bond Centre in the amounts ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $624.25 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $179.40 [The tenant/s]: $444.85

Reasons

[Tenant name suppressed], for both tenants, and the landlord’s representative attended the hearing held remotely.
The parties disagree about two claims the landlord makes from the bond.
The rest of the bond has already been refunded to the tenants by agreement after a mediation conference. Extra cleaning
A tenant is required to leave premises “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” at the end of a tenancy; section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The house does not have to be spotless or pristine, or necessarily returned to the same standard it was presented in.
If a landlord wishes to clean the premises to a standard higher than reasonably clean (for example, for re-tenanting), then they are free to do so - at their own cost and effort.
Both parties supplied photos.
My decision is that the tenants left the premises more than reasonably clean.
In the main, the house was extremely clean and tidy. In fact, I have rarely seen such a high standard of tenant cleaning.
I agree that the ceramic stovetop showed wipe-marks of what looks to be cleaning product residue and other photos revealed a couple of spots on a roller blind, some grass clippings inside the green-waste bin and two or three baked- on bits on an oven tray. These are examples of a landlord preferring a spotless or pristine result.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim. Cleaning product damage to the paint in one corner in the kitchen
The tenants accept that the corner of a painted wall under the top kitchen cupboards was damaged by a bleach ingredient in a cleaning product they used.
The bleached section is visible and affects an area large enough to make it reasonable for the landlord to repair it.
The tenants accept liability, and this is the correct legal outcome as the damage is more than “wear and tear”. Section 49B RTA.
Wear and tear is anything that happens as a normal part of living in the premises.
The landlord claims $396.75 based on an invoice for repainting the area. It was clarified in the hearing that the total invoice of $448.50 included work to repair another small area behind the kitchen tap. The landlord does not seek compensation for this repair (the paint had peeled slightly).
Two walls were fully repainted to avoid a “patched” look. The landlord pointed out that the house was brand new before this tenancy, so the aim was to return the walls to the ingoing condition.
This tenancy was of two years duration. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in if the corner had not been damaged.
In this case, the kitchen walls situated directly above the benchtop would have been showing signs of the normal wear and tear to be expected over two years of normal kitchen activities such as food preparation and washing dishes. The walls are not protected by a splashback except directly behind the cooktop.
It is not fair to apportion the invoice as 88% relating to the repair of the bleached corner and 12% for the water damage behind the tap. Some of the cost is probably a standard call-out charge so should be shared equally. However, the bleached area is larger than the water damage so it is fair the tenants contribute more than 50%.
I award the landlord two-thirds of the full amount of the invoice ($299.00) minus depreciation to account for normal wear and tear of 40% 1 ($119.60) leaving an award of $179.40. Filing fees and suppression of names
Both parties have partially succeeded so I leave the filing fees as paid and suppress both parties’ names.
The bond will be refunded directly from the Bond Centre in the amounts ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279559 — Cleanliness at 62B Cleveland Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279559 — Cleanliness at 62B Cleveland Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions