What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320879 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Home Rental Services Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5320879?

Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $269.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $126.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12646922-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5320879 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Home Rental Services Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5320879?

Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $269.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $126.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12646922-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Waverley Street, Elgin, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5320879 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5320879 — net $706.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$310.50	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$269.03	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$126.50	Rubbish removal
Net award	$706.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$706.03

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant failed to appear by video or answer the telephone calls made by the Tribunal.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Invoices were provided which substantiate the rubbish and cleaning required and the Landlords oral evidence was that the Tenant left behind cushions, a chair, old speakers, rubbish bags, mattresses and bed frames.

The Landlord claimed for carpet cleaning due to carpet staining on the landing area however there was no photographic evidence of the stains and the ingoing inspection report described the carpet as “rolling and worn”. Given the condition of the carpet at the start, I am not satisfied the carpet required professional cleaning unless there were photographs of the stains and of the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.

For this reason, the claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

The tenant did not return the keys. A locksmith was required and an invoice provided.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

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. 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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Holes in the living room, cupboard door, bedroom 1 and 3 and the bathroom walls. The laundry window required boarding up. The back door required glazing and the laundry door window and front door pane required replacement. The handle in the kitchen required replacement.

The Landlord provided an ingoing inspection report and invoices however the inspection report indicated that there was a “small torn area under window” in bedroom 1 walls, “torn areas. Patch” in bedroom 3 walls, “Patched area. Crack” in the landing walls and “Patched area” in the laundry walls. The bathroom walls were “poor”. The walls in the hallway had “minor nicks and scuffs”. The handle in the kitchen was already missing handles for the drawers.

The difficulty with the evidence provided by the Landlord is that without photographs of the damage from an ingoing and outgoing inspection report, it was difficult to assess how much damage had occurred since the start of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection report suggested there was damage already present or the condition in part of the property was poor.

For this reason, the entire claim is dismissed for the holes in the walls.

The Landlord claimed for back door glazing however there were no photos of the damage. The Landlord gave evidence that the Tenant’s partner smashed the door. Because there were no photographs of the damage to the backdoor, I am not satisfied the damage was caused by the Tenant.

The claim for glazing is dismissed.

The Landlord claimed for repairs to the front door and laundry door windows. The ingoing inspection report indicated the front door had a “crack top pane right corner” suggesting there was already damage at the start of the tenancy to the window.

Although there was evidence that the laundry door window had no issues at the start of the tenancy from the ingoing inspection report, the invoice did not itemise how much it cost to repair that window.

For this reason the claim is dismissed for both windows.

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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5320879 — net $706.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$310.50	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$269.03	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$126.50	Rubbish removal
Net award	$706.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$706.03

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant failed to appear by video or answer the telephone calls made by the Tribunal.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

For this reason, the claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

The tenant did not return the keys. A locksmith was required and an invoice provided.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

For this reason, the entire claim is dismissed for the holes in the walls.

The claim for glazing is dismissed.

For this reason the claim is dismissed for both windows.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320879 — Cleanliness at 26 Waverley Street, Elgin, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320879 — Cleanliness at 26 Waverley Street, Elgin, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.