What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296999 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 5296999?

Cleaning: $741.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.90 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $216.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $422.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12437677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296999 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 5296999?

Cleaning: $741.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.90 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $216.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $422.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12437677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296999 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296999 — net $1,625.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and carpet cleaning	$741.00	Cleaning: and carpet cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$218.90	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$422.04	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Garage door	$216.40	Repairs: Garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,625.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,625.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rosemarie Sonja Kaa Turner and Natasha Selina Gosnell Tapiki must pay [The landlord/s] $1,625.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone numbers provided but the phone calls went to voice mail. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with the application and notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their 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”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. 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. b. 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. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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.” d. The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1 Compensation
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. 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 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, and 4 d. return all keys and security devices. 5

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. 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. b. 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. A significant amount of rubbish and other items of likely no value were left at the premises. The landlord also said the tenant had two large dogs and there was a strong odour in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs which show some marks on the carpet.
The amount ordered is proved with the end of tenancy inspection report and invoices.

LOCKS AND KEYS

The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice and oral evidence. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE 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.
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 6 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. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 d. 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. 8 e. 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). 9 f. 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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11 g. 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. 12 h. 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. 13 i. 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 6 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 7 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 8 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The garage door was damaged by the tenant which caused it to come out of alignment which affected the mechanism causing it to not open and close. The landlord said the tenant acknowledged damaging the door during the tenancy. The landlord said the damage did not appear to have been intentional and was likely caused carelessly.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed $750 to rehang curtains and replace a blind. Photographs of the damage at the end of the tenancy were submitted. The amount claimed is the landlord’s insurance excess in respect of a claim that the landlord said was approved by the landlord’s insurer in respect of the damage. The landlord did not provide an invoice in support of the claim or confirmation of the approval of the claim. The landlord could also not advise the age of the curtains. I consider there is insufficient evidence in support of the claim for curtain and blind damage and this claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

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. 14
The landlord sought name suppression and as they have been substantially successful with the claim, I order the landlord’s name to be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296999 — net $1,625.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and carpet cleaning	$741.00	Cleaning: and carpet cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$218.90	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$422.04	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Garage door	$216.40	Repairs: Garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,625.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,625.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rosemarie Sonja Kaa Turner and Natasha Selina Gosnell Tapiki must pay [The landlord/s] $1,625.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone numbers provided but the phone calls went to voice mail. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with the application and notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their 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”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. 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. b. 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. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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.” d. The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1 Compensation
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. 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 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, and 4 d. return all keys and security devices. 5

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. 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. b. 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. A significant amount of rubbish and other items of likely no value were left at the premises. The landlord also said the tenant had two large dogs and there was a strong odour in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs which show some marks on the carpet.
The amount ordered is proved with the end of tenancy inspection report and invoices.

LOCKS AND KEYS

The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice and oral evidence. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE 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.
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 6 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. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 d. 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. 8 e. 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). 9 f. 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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11 g. 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. 12 h. 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. 13 i. 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 6 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 7 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 8 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The garage door was damaged by the tenant which caused it to come out of alignment which affected the mechanism causing it to not open and close. The landlord said the tenant acknowledged damaging the door during the tenancy. The landlord said the damage did not appear to have been intentional and was likely caused carelessly.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed $750 to rehang curtains and replace a blind. Photographs of the damage at the end of the tenancy were submitted. The amount claimed is the landlord’s insurance excess in respect of a claim that the landlord said was approved by the landlord’s insurer in respect of the damage. The landlord did not provide an invoice in support of the claim or confirmation of the approval of the claim. The landlord could also not advise the age of the curtains. I consider there is insufficient evidence in support of the claim for curtain and blind damage and this claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

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. 14
The landlord sought name suppression and as they have been substantially successful with the claim, I order the landlord’s name to be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296999 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296999 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCKS AND KEYS

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

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

LOCKS AND KEYS

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions