What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365687 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 5365687?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365687?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365687?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13243657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365687 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 5365687?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365687?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365687?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13243657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

207 Westminster Street, Mairehau, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5365687 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not agree to the claims.

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the wooden flooring?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably 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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have looked at the photos taken at the final inspection. I can only see one dark mark to the side of the room. All other marks look to be reasonable wear and tear. It seems most likely to me the tenants left the wooden floor in a reasonable condition overall. I am not persuaded that the tenants should pay $300 for specialised floor cleaning. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for damage. The 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 tenants 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.
There is a claim for painting a door and three walls. There was no dispute from the tenants that the marks happened during the tenancy. I have considered the photos taken by the landlord at the final inspection. I can see there is some damage, but I am not persuaded from the photos that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The fact the tenants had a pool table and some pallets inside is not decisive because the landlord must prove that any damage is greater than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for an electrician to replace two light bulbs in the kitchen and replace the damaged front face of a heat pump. I have not allowed the claim for the light bulbs because there was no damage by the tenants.
The tenants agree the damage to the front of the heat pump happened during the tenancy. They said they located a replacement for about half what the electrician charged the landlord. The tenants said the damage happened over time because the heat pump was located where they took their shoes off and was sometimes knocked. It seems most likely to me the damage is fair wear and tear. Even if I am wrong about this I find the landlord has not proved there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.
The last claim is for repairing a broken window in the sleepout. The tenants agree the window cracked during the tenancy. They said the glass was compromised because of a cat door that was not installed properly, and there was no careless or intentional damage. The landlord said there was no way the cat door could be to blame. The landlord has to have the better evidence to prove the claim. I am persuaded the poorly installed cat door could have affected the glass. The landlord has not proved there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not agree to the claims.

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the wooden flooring?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably 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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have looked at the photos taken at the final inspection. I can only see one dark mark to the side of the room. All other marks look to be reasonable wear and tear. It seems most likely to me the tenants left the wooden floor in a reasonable condition overall. I am not persuaded that the tenants should pay $300 for specialised floor cleaning. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for damage. The 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 tenants 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.
There is a claim for painting a door and three walls. There was no dispute from the tenants that the marks happened during the tenancy. I have considered the photos taken by the landlord at the final inspection. I can see there is some damage, but I am not persuaded from the photos that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The fact the tenants had a pool table and some pallets inside is not decisive because the landlord must prove that any damage is greater than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for an electrician to replace two light bulbs in the kitchen and replace the damaged front face of a heat pump. I have not allowed the claim for the light bulbs because there was no damage by the tenants.
The tenants agree the damage to the front of the heat pump happened during the tenancy. They said they located a replacement for about half what the electrician charged the landlord. The tenants said the damage happened over time because the heat pump was located where they took their shoes off and was sometimes knocked. It seems most likely to me the damage is fair wear and tear. Even if I am wrong about this I find the landlord has not proved there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.
The last claim is for repairing a broken window in the sleepout. The tenants agree the window cracked during the tenancy. They said the glass was compromised because of a cat door that was not installed properly, and there was no careless or intentional damage. The landlord said there was no way the cat door could be to blame. The landlord has to have the better evidence to prove the claim. I am persuaded the poorly installed cat door could have affected the glass. The landlord has not proved there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365687 — Cleanliness at 207 Westminster Street, Mairehau, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365687 — Cleanliness at 207 Westminster Street, Mairehau, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the wooden flooring?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants pay for cleaning the wooden flooring?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions