What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335441 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the order of earlier today.

How much money was awarded in case 5335441?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $385.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335441?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13308913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335441 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the order of earlier today.

How much money was awarded in case 5335441?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $385.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335441?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13308913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335441 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335441 — net $795.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$385.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$2,760.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$795.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$795.02

This order replaces the order of earlier today.

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details.

Elizabeth Manutai and Shane Weir must pay [The landlord/s] $795.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2877.98 ([Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$385.00 Repairs$2,760.00 Cleaning$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,673.00 Bond$2,877.98 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$795.02 1 The order issued earlier today had a typographical error and was recalled and is now reissued.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 and remove all rubbish.

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2

The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.

In Ace Property Management v Owens 3 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but I consider I did not have enough proof submitted by the landlord to establish that all of the cleaning that was undertaken was required. For example, the cleaning included the stove, but there was no photographic evidence corroborating this.

I will allow $500 towards the cost of the cleaning, as ordered above, as I consider this a reasonable sum for the cleaning I am satisfied was required. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 3 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008

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.

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.

During the tenancy the tenant accepted there was damage to the property. This consisted of many holes in the walls and writing on the walls.

I consider all this damage to be deliberate. I will allow the recovery by the landlord of the sum of $2760 for those repairs as I consider this to be a reasonable sum.

Regarding the claim for repairs in the garage I do not allow this claim. The landlord claims there was a hole put in the garage to pull a power cord through to the outside and that there was damage to wiring inside the garage. There was a lack of evidence corroborating the condition of the garage wiring at the outset of the tenancy. I therefore dismiss this claim as it has not been proven on the balance of probabilities.

The tenant claims that she has a number of issues with the property but she has not filed her own application. I explained to her that for those matters to be heard, she will need to file her own application.

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord has succeeded with the claim and so is entitled to name suppressions.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335441 — net $795.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$385.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$2,760.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$795.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$795.02

Order

This order replaces the order of earlier today.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The landlord/s] name and identifying details.
Elizabeth Manutai and Shane Weir must pay [The landlord/s] $795.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2877.98 ([Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$385.00 Repairs$2,760.00 Cleaning$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,673.00 Bond$2,877.98 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$795.02 1 The order issued earlier today had a typographical error and was recalled and is now reissued.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 and remove all rubbish.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2
The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens 3 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but I consider I did not have enough proof submitted by the landlord to establish that all of the cleaning that was undertaken was required. For example, the cleaning included the stove, but there was no photographic evidence corroborating this.
I will allow $500 towards the cost of the cleaning, as ordered above, as I consider this a reasonable sum for the cleaning I am satisfied was required. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 3 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008

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.
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.
During the tenancy the tenant accepted there was damage to the property. This consisted of many holes in the walls and writing on the walls.
I consider all this damage to be deliberate. I will allow the recovery by the landlord of the sum of $2760 for those repairs as I consider this to be a reasonable sum.
Regarding the claim for repairs in the garage I do not allow this claim. The landlord claims there was a hole put in the garage to pull a power cord through to the outside and that there was damage to wiring inside the garage. There was a lack of evidence corroborating the condition of the garage wiring at the outset of the tenancy. I therefore dismiss this claim as it has not been proven on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claims that she has a number of issues with the property but she has not filed her own application. I explained to her that for those matters to be heard, she will need to file her own application.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has succeeded with the claim and so is entitled to name suppressions.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335441 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335441 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions