What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283420 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 5283420?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Install Roller Blind: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $134.49 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install Curtain Track: $93.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $510.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283420?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12453015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5283420 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 5283420?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Install Roller Blind: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $134.49 awarded to landlord; Replace And Install Curtain Track: $93.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $510.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283420?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12453015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5283420 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5283420 — net $867.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$510.16		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding	$134.49		Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding
Install roller blind	$50.00		Install roller blind
Replace and install curtain track	$93.70		Replace and install curtain track
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond credit held by landlord		$298.13	Bond credit held by landlord
Total award	$1,165.35	$298.13
Net award	$867.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$867.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Aleasha Maree Norman must pay [The landlord/s] $867.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

BOND

The landlord and tenant arranged for the bond of $2,320 to be released to the landlord to offset the rent arrears of $2,021.87 to the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal made no determination about the rent arrears however the landlord agreed they hold a balance of $298.13 which is to be deducted from the amount ordered in this claim. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 c. remove all rubbish, 4 d. return all keys and security devices, 5 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 6

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

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).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 7 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 8 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 9
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 10 A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re- 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 7 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 8 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 9 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 10 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house. However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 11 so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims $400 for cleaning.
The landlord provided the pre tenancy and post tenancy inspection report and an invoice in support of the claim. The invoice records the following was undertaken: Cleaning 8 hours total, Windows inside and out, Walls, Kitchen, Lounge, Bedrooms, Laundry, Ceilings, Floors, Bathroom/Toilet.
I note that the tenancy was 14 months, so not particularly long. In reviewing the photographs provided at the end of the tenancy I consider the tenant was close to leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Some additional cleaning was required but I am not satisfied the tenant is liable for the full amount of the invoice, for example, I do not consider the tenant should be responsible for cleaning the windows inside and out or cleaning the ceiling. Therefore, I make an order for compensation for $350 for cleaning. The balance of the claim is dismissed.
I will address the claim for rubbish removal and garden work below. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 12 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 13 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 14 11 See section 45(1)(a) RTA. 12 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 13 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 14 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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). 15 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). 16 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 17
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. 18 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. 19
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

The insurance excess was $1,000 and rent was $580 per week.
The landlord claimed $1,143 in respect of a handman’s man / maintenance invoice (the invoice). Part of the invoice related to rubbish removal and garden work and part of it related to damage. The invoice was itemised as follows: • General rubbish to dump = $310.16. • Roundup spray - $34.49. • Roller blind blockout 210cm x 210 cm. $185.90 • Curtain track – extendable 3m - $43.70 • Gate post (latch side) $25.10 • Concrete - $24 • Travel – 1 hour - $45 = Total $45 15 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 16 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 17 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 18 See section 49B(1) RTA. 19 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. • Labour – 9.5 x $50 per hour = $475.
I requested the landlord provide a break down for the labour following the hearing, which the landlord obtained from the handman and duly filed.
General rubbish removal - The tenant did not remove their rubbish. The landlord provided photographs in support of the claim. I will allow $310.16 for the cost of rubbish disposal and $200 (4hours) for labour. The total for rubbish removal is $510.16.
Weeding - The landlord claimed $34.49 for round-up spray and labour. I will allow this cost as the end of tenancy photographs show the gardens had weeds that required removal. I will allow $100 (2 hours) for labour. The total ordered for weed removal is $134.49.
The landlord said the curtains and blinds were new in 2022, therefore they were approximately three years old at the end of the tenancy. The IR265 General depreciation rates say a curtains and blinds have a useful lifespan of 8 years.
Roller blind - The landlord said the blind was on the ground at the end of the tenancy. The invoice appears to indicate the landlord purchased a new blind. I am not satisfied on the evidence that a new blind was required. There is insufficient evidence that the blind was damaged at the end of the tenancy, and I am unclear as to why the current blind could not be rehung. I will award $50 (1 hour) for the installation of the blind, as I accept that blind installation was required.
Curtain track - The curtain track appears to have been damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I will allow the curtain track replacement cost of $43.70 and allow labour of $50 (1 hour) to hang the curtain track. The total ordered in respect of the curtain track is $93.70.
Gate post - The landlord was unable to identify the damage to the gate post which is itemised in the invoice (to which the concrete referred to the invoice also related to). Therefore, I decline to award the cost of the gatepost and concrete. The balance of the claim for labour (1.5 hours) is dismissed. The claim for travel time is dismissed as the landlord would have incurred this cost in any event in relation to the repair of the gate post, which I have found the tenant is not liable for.
The amounts ordered are proved.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27. 20

SUPPRESSION

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. 21

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5283420 — net $867.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$510.16		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding	$134.49		Lawns and Garden work: - Weeding
Install roller blind	$50.00		Install roller blind
Replace and install curtain track	$93.70		Replace and install curtain track
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond credit held by landlord		$298.13	Bond credit held by landlord
Total award	$1,165.35	$298.13
Net award	$867.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$867.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Aleasha Maree Norman must pay [The landlord/s] $867.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

BOND

The landlord and tenant arranged for the bond of $2,320 to be released to the landlord to offset the rent arrears of $2,021.87 to the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal made no determination about the rent arrears however the landlord agreed they hold a balance of $298.13 which is to be deducted from the amount ordered in this claim. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 c. remove all rubbish, 4 d. return all keys and security devices, 5 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 6

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

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).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 7 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 8 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 9
There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 10 A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re- 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 7 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 8 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 9 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 10 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house. However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 11 so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims $400 for cleaning.
The landlord provided the pre tenancy and post tenancy inspection report and an invoice in support of the claim. The invoice records the following was undertaken: Cleaning 8 hours total, Windows inside and out, Walls, Kitchen, Lounge, Bedrooms, Laundry, Ceilings, Floors, Bathroom/Toilet.
I note that the tenancy was 14 months, so not particularly long. In reviewing the photographs provided at the end of the tenancy I consider the tenant was close to leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Some additional cleaning was required but I am not satisfied the tenant is liable for the full amount of the invoice, for example, I do not consider the tenant should be responsible for cleaning the windows inside and out or cleaning the ceiling. Therefore, I make an order for compensation for $350 for cleaning. The balance of the claim is dismissed.
I will address the claim for rubbish removal and garden work below. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 12 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 13 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 14 11 See section 45(1)(a) RTA. 12 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 13 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 14 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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). 15 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). 16 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 17
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. 18 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. 19
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

The insurance excess was $1,000 and rent was $580 per week.
The landlord claimed $1,143 in respect of a handman’s man / maintenance invoice (the invoice). Part of the invoice related to rubbish removal and garden work and part of it related to damage. The invoice was itemised as follows: • General rubbish to dump = $310.16. • Roundup spray - $34.49. • Roller blind blockout 210cm x 210 cm. $185.90 • Curtain track – extendable 3m - $43.70 • Gate post (latch side) $25.10 • Concrete - $24 • Travel – 1 hour - $45 = Total $45 15 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 16 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 17 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 18 See section 49B(1) RTA. 19 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. • Labour – 9.5 x $50 per hour = $475.
I requested the landlord provide a break down for the labour following the hearing, which the landlord obtained from the handman and duly filed.
General rubbish removal - The tenant did not remove their rubbish. The landlord provided photographs in support of the claim. I will allow $310.16 for the cost of rubbish disposal and $200 (4hours) for labour. The total for rubbish removal is $510.16.
Weeding - The landlord claimed $34.49 for round-up spray and labour. I will allow this cost as the end of tenancy photographs show the gardens had weeds that required removal. I will allow $100 (2 hours) for labour. The total ordered for weed removal is $134.49.
The landlord said the curtains and blinds were new in 2022, therefore they were approximately three years old at the end of the tenancy. The IR265 General depreciation rates say a curtains and blinds have a useful lifespan of 8 years.
Roller blind - The landlord said the blind was on the ground at the end of the tenancy. The invoice appears to indicate the landlord purchased a new blind. I am not satisfied on the evidence that a new blind was required. There is insufficient evidence that the blind was damaged at the end of the tenancy, and I am unclear as to why the current blind could not be rehung. I will award $50 (1 hour) for the installation of the blind, as I accept that blind installation was required.
Curtain track - The curtain track appears to have been damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I will allow the curtain track replacement cost of $43.70 and allow labour of $50 (1 hour) to hang the curtain track. The total ordered in respect of the curtain track is $93.70.
Gate post - The landlord was unable to identify the damage to the gate post which is itemised in the invoice (to which the concrete referred to the invoice also related to). Therefore, I decline to award the cost of the gatepost and concrete. The balance of the claim for labour (1.5 hours) is dismissed. The claim for travel time is dismissed as the landlord would have incurred this cost in any event in relation to the repair of the gate post, which I have found the tenant is not liable for.
The amounts ordered are proved.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27. 20

SUPPRESSION

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. 21

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283420 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283420 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

BOND

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

BOND

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions