What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384643 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 5384643?

Cleaning: $870.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $430.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Paintwork: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384643?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13013618-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384643 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 5384643?

Cleaning: $870.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $430.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Paintwork: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384643?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13013618-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384643 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384643 — net $560.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$870.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Replace/repair furnishings	$430.00	Replace/repair furnishings
Repairs: Carpet	$300.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Paintwork	$900.00	Repairs: Paintwork
Pest control	$230.00	Pest control
Net award	$560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$560.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Min Su $560.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$650.00 Carpet Cleaning$870.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Replace/repair furnishings$430.00 Repairs: Carpet$300.00 Repairs: Paintwork$900.00 Pest control$230.00 Total award$3,480.00 Bond$2,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$560.00
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Shortly after the end of the tenancy, the tenants had agreed to forfeit their bond and make a payment towards end of tenancy costs. However, the landlord’s claims kept increasing, so the claims were not resolved and there was no concluded agreement between the parties.
The landlord has applied (5384643) for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been paid to the landlord.
The tenants had also made an application (5327684). Their application was not seeking orders from the Tribunal but was a pre-emptive defence to the landlord’s claims.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $920 for cleaning, $100 for rubbish removal and $1,320 for carpet stain removal and cleaning.
The tenants disputed the claims. The landlord provided in-going and end of tenancy photographs. I find that some cleaning was done by the tenants, but that the kitchen and oven required significant additional work. Having regard to the photographs, the receipt provided and claims for similar work, I award the landlord $650 for cleaning.
The carpet was not clean, and did not even appear to be well vacuumed, there was staining. The claim for carpet cleaning included 19 specific charges for stain treatments. The photographs provided by the landlord support a claim for approximately half that number. I award carpet cleaning costs of $870.
The tenants dispute the rubbish removal claim of $100 and estimate that the rubbish they left behind could have been disposed of a for nominal charge (or free). Tenants are obliged to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. They did not. The claim of $100 is reasonable and is proved.
The landlord also claimed for pest control for rodents. The tenants disputed the claim and said any infestation occurred after they moved. However, the landlord provided evidence of rodent droppings through the kitchen cupboards at the exit inspection. I find that the tenants are liable for the pest control cost of $230.00 as a result of the premises not being reasonably clean.
The landlord claimed for a range of replacement chattels. There was no chattels list included in the tenancy agreement. The landlord claimed a replacement garage door remote, but the tenants say that they did not receive one and there is no mention of one in the record of keys provided. The landlord provided little or no evidence of replacement or repair costs for damaged items.
The tenants accepted the cost of replacement blind ($49) and a desk drawer ($30). The couch was soiled beyond reasonable wear and tear. However, I accept the tenant submission that it was a white couch, used by 5 tenants for 5 years and the landlord did not provided evidence of attempts to clean. I consider that compensation of $200 would be appropriate for the couch. I have also allowed $50 for a replacement fridge tray and $100 for a TV cabinet drawer. The landlord’s other claims for replacement chattels were not proved and are dismissed.

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.
The landlord claimed that following damage was caused during the tenancy: vanity top cracked and required replacement, carpet damage, paint/wall damage and oil on the garage floor. The landlord claims that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claim for a vanity is dismissed. There was evidence of a hairline crack in the surface of the vanity top. There was no evidence to prove that the vanity had to be replaced because of the crack, no evidence of the replacement cost, no evidence of the work being done and no evidence of a settlement with the insurer to support the claim for an excess.
Carpet damage around doorways is more than fair wear and tear. It is pulling damage at corners; it is not caused by foot traffic in high use areas as the tenants suggested. I accept that some of the carpet damage may have been caused by a leak (which was not the tenant’s responsibility). I award $300 of the $586.50 claimed for carpet repairs.
The tenants also claimed that the wall damage was fair wear and tear. I have carefully compared the in-going and outgoing photographs. A lot of the scuffs and rub marks are fair wear and tear, particularly having regard to the 5 year duration of this tenancy. Some of the damage is more substantial, particularly where it appears items have been removed for walls and the damage is peeling, not scuffing. I have awarded $900 of the $1,610 claimed for wall damage (Handyman repairs).
The claim for oil on the garage floor is dismissed. Some oil staining is common on garage floors. There was no evidence that an “off the shelf” solvent cleaner had failed to remove or reduce the oil in this instance. The claim for compensation of $300 was not proved.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. The tenants were substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claims. The amount they have been ordered to pay is less than they had indicated they would pay to end these claims. For that reason, I have granted suppression of their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384643 — net $560.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$870.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Replace/repair furnishings	$430.00	Replace/repair furnishings
Repairs: Carpet	$300.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Paintwork	$900.00	Repairs: Paintwork
Pest control	$230.00	Pest control
Net award	$560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$560.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Min Su $560.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$650.00 Carpet Cleaning$870.00 Rubbish removal$100.00 Replace/repair furnishings$430.00 Repairs: Carpet$300.00 Repairs: Paintwork$900.00 Pest control$230.00 Total award$3,480.00 Bond$2,920.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$560.00
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Shortly after the end of the tenancy, the tenants had agreed to forfeit their bond and make a payment towards end of tenancy costs. However, the landlord’s claims kept increasing, so the claims were not resolved and there was no concluded agreement between the parties.
The landlord has applied (5384643) for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been paid to the landlord.
The tenants had also made an application (5327684). Their application was not seeking orders from the Tribunal but was a pre-emptive defence to the landlord’s claims.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $920 for cleaning, $100 for rubbish removal and $1,320 for carpet stain removal and cleaning.
The tenants disputed the claims. The landlord provided in-going and end of tenancy photographs. I find that some cleaning was done by the tenants, but that the kitchen and oven required significant additional work. Having regard to the photographs, the receipt provided and claims for similar work, I award the landlord $650 for cleaning.
The carpet was not clean, and did not even appear to be well vacuumed, there was staining. The claim for carpet cleaning included 19 specific charges for stain treatments. The photographs provided by the landlord support a claim for approximately half that number. I award carpet cleaning costs of $870.
The tenants dispute the rubbish removal claim of $100 and estimate that the rubbish they left behind could have been disposed of a for nominal charge (or free). Tenants are obliged to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. They did not. The claim of $100 is reasonable and is proved.
The landlord also claimed for pest control for rodents. The tenants disputed the claim and said any infestation occurred after they moved. However, the landlord provided evidence of rodent droppings through the kitchen cupboards at the exit inspection. I find that the tenants are liable for the pest control cost of $230.00 as a result of the premises not being reasonably clean.
The landlord claimed for a range of replacement chattels. There was no chattels list included in the tenancy agreement. The landlord claimed a replacement garage door remote, but the tenants say that they did not receive one and there is no mention of one in the record of keys provided. The landlord provided little or no evidence of replacement or repair costs for damaged items.
The tenants accepted the cost of replacement blind ($49) and a desk drawer ($30). The couch was soiled beyond reasonable wear and tear. However, I accept the tenant submission that it was a white couch, used by 5 tenants for 5 years and the landlord did not provided evidence of attempts to clean. I consider that compensation of $200 would be appropriate for the couch. I have also allowed $50 for a replacement fridge tray and $100 for a TV cabinet drawer. The landlord’s other claims for replacement chattels were not proved and are dismissed.

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.
The landlord claimed that following damage was caused during the tenancy: vanity top cracked and required replacement, carpet damage, paint/wall damage and oil on the garage floor. The landlord claims that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claim for a vanity is dismissed. There was evidence of a hairline crack in the surface of the vanity top. There was no evidence to prove that the vanity had to be replaced because of the crack, no evidence of the replacement cost, no evidence of the work being done and no evidence of a settlement with the insurer to support the claim for an excess.
Carpet damage around doorways is more than fair wear and tear. It is pulling damage at corners; it is not caused by foot traffic in high use areas as the tenants suggested. I accept that some of the carpet damage may have been caused by a leak (which was not the tenant’s responsibility). I award $300 of the $586.50 claimed for carpet repairs.
The tenants also claimed that the wall damage was fair wear and tear. I have carefully compared the in-going and outgoing photographs. A lot of the scuffs and rub marks are fair wear and tear, particularly having regard to the 5 year duration of this tenancy. Some of the damage is more substantial, particularly where it appears items have been removed for walls and the damage is peeling, not scuffing. I have awarded $900 of the $1,610 claimed for wall damage (Handyman repairs).
The claim for oil on the garage floor is dismissed. Some oil staining is common on garage floors. There was no evidence that an “off the shelf” solvent cleaner had failed to remove or reduce the oil in this instance. The claim for compensation of $300 was not proved.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. The tenants were substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claims. The amount they have been ordered to pay is less than they had indicated they would pay to end these claims. For that reason, I have granted suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384643 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384643 — Property damage

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions