What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290259 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 5290259?

The reconciled net award was $331.06.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290259?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12452087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290259 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 5290259?

The reconciled net award was $331.06.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290259?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12452087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5290259 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $331.06 immediately, being reimbursement of part of the cost of replacement vinyl.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In dispute is the sum of $971.37, being part of the bond.
The tenancy ended on 26 May 2025. On 13 June 2025 the parties signed a bond form releasing $588.63 to the tenant. The remaining $971.37 was to be held at the Bond Centre. On 18 June the tenant applied for release of the bond.
However, on 23 June 2025 the parties signed a bond release form in which $588.63 was refunded to the tenant and $971.37 was refunded to the landlord. It is reasonable that the landlord considered the matter at an end.
Although the tenant had signed the bond over to the landlord, I have considered her claim on the basis that she felt stressed and under pressure when she did so. She was perhaps muddled as to the appropriate course of action.
I do not suggest that the landlord put her under that pressure or behaved in any manner that was untoward.
The matters in dispute are cleaning, damage to vinyl and damage to a wall. Cleaning
The tenancy ended on Saturday 24 May 2025. The tenant moved out on the Friday and paid a cleaner to clean on the Saturday. She was handing the keys back on the Monday.
In the meantime, the owners took possession, as they were entitled to, on Sunday 25 May.
The owners were not happy with the standard of cleaning. There is no dispute that it had not been left reasonably clean and tidy, the cleaning company having been let down by its employees or contractors. The company offered to come and do the job properly but the owners did not agree. That is not unreasonable given the tenancy had ended.
The property managers negotiated on behalf of the tenant for her to get a full refund of what she had paid. They engaged their professional cleaners and the bill for that was $200. That amount has been deducted from the bond.
That is entirely reasonable. It is less than the amount the tenant had paid. She was refunded in full and has now had to pay another agency to clean essentially for less than what she had originally contracted with her cleaner.
There is no reason to interfere with that arrangement. Damage to wall
The landlord produced photographs showing that paint had come away from the wall in several places in the laundry, where the washing machine had been. The entry inspection photos showed no such damage.
The tenant said there was damage to the wall when she moved in, and that the entry photos were not a true reflection of the state of the walls. She had no other photos which showed anything different from the landlord’s photos.
In the absence of any other evidence, I find it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord had claimed only for the patching, not a complete paint. They provided an invoice for $109.25. That is reasonable. Vinyl flooring
The landlord had deducted $662.12 from the bond for damage to the lino in the laundry. This was based on invoices which they had carefully adjusted not to include other flooring that they were replacing.
Again, the landlord had before and after photos. The tenant had no photos or other evidence to support her claim that the lino was like that when she moved in.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The only issue is the quantum. Should there be some deduction for 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. I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy began in 2018. The flooring was not new then. The owners have had the benefit of that flooring.
At the hearing I indicated that I would refer to the IRD depreciation guidelines for assistance. The IRD depreciation guidelines list carpet coverings for rental properties, but not vinyl flooring for rental properties, only for hotels.
The expected life of vinyl flooring in shops, hotels, motels and bars is 10 years. By comparison, the expected life of carpet is only 5 years, compared with 8 years for carpets installed in rental properties since 2011.
Based on that, I can conclude that vinyl flooring is expected to last much longer than carpet and in a hotel, vinyl flooring is expected to last twice as long as carpet. On that calculation, the vinyl flooring in a rental should last about 16 years, being twice as long as the depreciation rates for carpets.
But for the gouge in the vinyl, it would not have needed replacement. I have decided it is reasonable that the tenant should be responsible for half of the cost of replacement, leaving one half that she is not responsible for. Therefore I order that she be reimbursed $331.06.
Both parties have had some success. There are orders for name suppression and there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $331.06 immediately, being reimbursement of part of the cost of replacement vinyl.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In dispute is the sum of $971.37, being part of the bond.
The tenancy ended on 26 May 2025. On 13 June 2025 the parties signed a bond form releasing $588.63 to the tenant. The remaining $971.37 was to be held at the Bond Centre. On 18 June the tenant applied for release of the bond.
However, on 23 June 2025 the parties signed a bond release form in which $588.63 was refunded to the tenant and $971.37 was refunded to the landlord. It is reasonable that the landlord considered the matter at an end.
Although the tenant had signed the bond over to the landlord, I have considered her claim on the basis that she felt stressed and under pressure when she did so. She was perhaps muddled as to the appropriate course of action.
I do not suggest that the landlord put her under that pressure or behaved in any manner that was untoward.
The matters in dispute are cleaning, damage to vinyl and damage to a wall. Cleaning
The tenancy ended on Saturday 24 May 2025. The tenant moved out on the Friday and paid a cleaner to clean on the Saturday. She was handing the keys back on the Monday.
In the meantime, the owners took possession, as they were entitled to, on Sunday 25 May.
The owners were not happy with the standard of cleaning. There is no dispute that it had not been left reasonably clean and tidy, the cleaning company having been let down by its employees or contractors. The company offered to come and do the job properly but the owners did not agree. That is not unreasonable given the tenancy had ended.
The property managers negotiated on behalf of the tenant for her to get a full refund of what she had paid. They engaged their professional cleaners and the bill for that was $200. That amount has been deducted from the bond.
That is entirely reasonable. It is less than the amount the tenant had paid. She was refunded in full and has now had to pay another agency to clean essentially for less than what she had originally contracted with her cleaner.
There is no reason to interfere with that arrangement. Damage to wall
The landlord produced photographs showing that paint had come away from the wall in several places in the laundry, where the washing machine had been. The entry inspection photos showed no such damage.
The tenant said there was damage to the wall when she moved in, and that the entry photos were not a true reflection of the state of the walls. She had no other photos which showed anything different from the landlord’s photos.
In the absence of any other evidence, I find it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord had claimed only for the patching, not a complete paint. They provided an invoice for $109.25. That is reasonable. Vinyl flooring
The landlord had deducted $662.12 from the bond for damage to the lino in the laundry. This was based on invoices which they had carefully adjusted not to include other flooring that they were replacing.
Again, the landlord had before and after photos. The tenant had no photos or other evidence to support her claim that the lino was like that when she moved in.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The only issue is the quantum. Should there be some deduction for 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. I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy began in 2018. The flooring was not new then. The owners have had the benefit of that flooring.
At the hearing I indicated that I would refer to the IRD depreciation guidelines for assistance. The IRD depreciation guidelines list carpet coverings for rental properties, but not vinyl flooring for rental properties, only for hotels.
The expected life of vinyl flooring in shops, hotels, motels and bars is 10 years. By comparison, the expected life of carpet is only 5 years, compared with 8 years for carpets installed in rental properties since 2011.
Based on that, I can conclude that vinyl flooring is expected to last much longer than carpet and in a hotel, vinyl flooring is expected to last twice as long as carpet. On that calculation, the vinyl flooring in a rental should last about 16 years, being twice as long as the depreciation rates for carpets.
But for the gouge in the vinyl, it would not have needed replacement. I have decided it is reasonable that the tenant should be responsible for half of the cost of replacement, leaving one half that she is not responsible for. Therefore I order that she be reimbursed $331.06.
Both parties have had some success. There are orders for name suppression and there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290259 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290259 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions