What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367547 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 5367547?

Cleaning: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,025.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367547?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13123951-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367547 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 5367547?

Cleaning: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,025.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367547?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13123951-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367547 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367547 — net $4,443.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exterior cladding damage	$750.00	Exterior cladding damage
Garage cladding and gate damage	$750.00	Garage cladding and gate damage
Interior repairs	$2,025.82	Interior repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$330.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,443.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,443.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ella joanne dawn workman and Mitchell wayne austin must pay [The landlord/s] $4,443.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Exterior cladding damage$750.00 Garage cladding and gate damage$750.00 Interior repairs$2,025.82 Carpet Cleaning$330.00 Cleaning$560.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$4,443.82 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,443.82

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2024 as a period tenancy. The two co-tenants are Ella Joanne Dawn Workman and Mitchell Wayne Austin.
The tenancy ended following notice from the tenants. The landlord considers that the premises were damaged, and unclean when the premises were returned, and that is the basis for this application before the Tribunal.

LANDLORDS CASE

As indicated above, the landlord seeks a range of compensation claims at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing the landlord confirmed the claims are for: a. Exterior cladding damage $750.00 b. Garage cladding and gate $750.00 c. Interior damage$2,025.82 d. Carpet cleaning$330.00 e. Cleaning$560.00
I will consider the claims more specifically below.

TENANTS CASE

There was no appearance by the tenants at the hearing, they have not filed submissions, I do not know the position the tenants taken in this case.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 Exterior cladding

The landlord states that during the tenancy there were issues with the tenants fighting, and the landlord understands that in the process of an argument, the cladding was damaged.
The landlord has provided photographs which show a hole in the exterior wall. A claim has been made with the insurer, and the landlord only seeks to recover the excess paid for the repair, which is $750.00.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The damage in this case was most likely intentional damage, but the landlord only seeks to recover the excess. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Garage cladding and gate damage
The landlord states that the gate has been damaged, in that the metal of the gate is bent, perhaps from a car driving into it. The garage cladding has a large dent which appears around half the height of the garage.
I have set out the relevant law that applies above.
The photographs confirm that the gate has been bent, and further The exterior cladding has a sizable dent in it.
Again this is a claim with the landlord is only seeking to recover the excess paid following the insurance claim.
The damage is not fair wear and tear, and I am satisfied it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. The damage is at least careless damage; the tenants must be liable for it. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 – Interior damage
The landlord’s position is that there is reasonably widespread damage throughout the interior of the property. This claim relates to materials used by the landlord to undertake the repairs, including repairs to fix damage to the following: a. Multiple holes in the interior walls. b. Remove and replacement of damaged kitchen cabinet c. Repairs to back door which tenant had replaced during the tenancy which was not painted.
The landlord has provided photographs taken from the premises before the tenancy commenced, and that shows a very tidy and damage free property. At the end of the tenancy there were multiple holes in the interior walls, I accept that one of the doors is unpainted, and I accept replaced during the tenancy by the tenants as described. I also accept that there is damage to the kitchen cabinetry. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear.
The damage as represented on the photographs would not be consistent with careless damage, it would fall into the intentional category. That means the tenants are liable for the full cost of the repairs. In this case, the landlord only seeks to recover the cost of materials expended for the repair, which is plainly to the tenants’ benefit. This claim is established, and I order the amount claimed in full. Claim 4 – Carpet cleaning
The landlord states that there was no attempt by the tenant to clean the house, the premises had a pungent odour in the premises, and the carpet was generally unclean.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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.
The photographs support that the premises were not returned reasonably clean. I accept the landlord’s assessment that carpet cleaning was necessary to return the premises to a reasonably clean state. The landlord has provided the invoice from the carpet cleaning company. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 5 - Cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning the premises of $560, which relates to costs associated with the landlord’s time and cleaning material.
Again, the photographs show premises that are not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, in fact significantly below that required level. The landlord has claimed $560 compensation for the landlord’s time. When I take into consideration the situation as depicted in the photographs, I consider that is a fair level of compensation. Plainly the landlord would have needed to expand their own time, which I would expect to have been more than a day, as well as using various products for the cleaning. This claim is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful, and has applied for name suppression; that application is granted to apply for the landlord only.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367547 — net $4,443.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exterior cladding damage	$750.00	Exterior cladding damage
Garage cladding and gate damage	$750.00	Garage cladding and gate damage
Interior repairs	$2,025.82	Interior repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$330.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,443.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,443.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ella joanne dawn workman and Mitchell wayne austin must pay [The landlord/s] $4,443.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Exterior cladding damage$750.00 Garage cladding and gate damage$750.00 Interior repairs$2,025.82 Carpet Cleaning$330.00 Cleaning$560.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$4,443.82 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,443.82

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2024 as a period tenancy. The two co-tenants are Ella Joanne Dawn Workman and Mitchell Wayne Austin.
The tenancy ended following notice from the tenants. The landlord considers that the premises were damaged, and unclean when the premises were returned, and that is the basis for this application before the Tribunal.

LANDLORDS CASE

As indicated above, the landlord seeks a range of compensation claims at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing the landlord confirmed the claims are for: a. Exterior cladding damage $750.00 b. Garage cladding and gate $750.00 c. Interior damage$2,025.82 d. Carpet cleaning$330.00 e. Cleaning$560.00
I will consider the claims more specifically below.

TENANTS CASE

There was no appearance by the tenants at the hearing, they have not filed submissions, I do not know the position the tenants taken in this case.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 Exterior cladding

The landlord states that during the tenancy there were issues with the tenants fighting, and the landlord understands that in the process of an argument, the cladding was damaged.
The landlord has provided photographs which show a hole in the exterior wall. A claim has been made with the insurer, and the landlord only seeks to recover the excess paid for the repair, which is $750.00.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear. The damage in this case was most likely intentional damage, but the landlord only seeks to recover the excess. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Garage cladding and gate damage
The landlord states that the gate has been damaged, in that the metal of the gate is bent, perhaps from a car driving into it. The garage cladding has a large dent which appears around half the height of the garage.
I have set out the relevant law that applies above.
The photographs confirm that the gate has been bent, and further The exterior cladding has a sizable dent in it.
Again this is a claim with the landlord is only seeking to recover the excess paid following the insurance claim.
The damage is not fair wear and tear, and I am satisfied it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. The damage is at least careless damage; the tenants must be liable for it. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 – Interior damage
The landlord’s position is that there is reasonably widespread damage throughout the interior of the property. This claim relates to materials used by the landlord to undertake the repairs, including repairs to fix damage to the following: a. Multiple holes in the interior walls. b. Remove and replacement of damaged kitchen cabinet c. Repairs to back door which tenant had replaced during the tenancy which was not painted.
The landlord has provided photographs taken from the premises before the tenancy commenced, and that shows a very tidy and damage free property. At the end of the tenancy there were multiple holes in the interior walls, I accept that one of the doors is unpainted, and I accept replaced during the tenancy by the tenants as described. I also accept that there is damage to the kitchen cabinetry. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear.
The damage as represented on the photographs would not be consistent with careless damage, it would fall into the intentional category. That means the tenants are liable for the full cost of the repairs. In this case, the landlord only seeks to recover the cost of materials expended for the repair, which is plainly to the tenants’ benefit. This claim is established, and I order the amount claimed in full. Claim 4 – Carpet cleaning
The landlord states that there was no attempt by the tenant to clean the house, the premises had a pungent odour in the premises, and the carpet was generally unclean.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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.
The photographs support that the premises were not returned reasonably clean. I accept the landlord’s assessment that carpet cleaning was necessary to return the premises to a reasonably clean state. The landlord has provided the invoice from the carpet cleaning company. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 5 - Cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning the premises of $560, which relates to costs associated with the landlord’s time and cleaning material.
Again, the photographs show premises that are not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, in fact significantly below that required level. The landlord has claimed $560 compensation for the landlord’s time. When I take into consideration the situation as depicted in the photographs, I consider that is a fair level of compensation. Plainly the landlord would have needed to expand their own time, which I would expect to have been more than a day, as well as using various products for the cleaning. This claim is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful, and has applied for name suppression; that application is granted to apply for the landlord only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367547 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367547 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions