What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421292?

The tribunal order states: Josephus Schepers to pay Houzer Holdings Limited $388.00 from the bond

How much money was awarded in case 5421292?

Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Second-Hand Bed: $290.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421292?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13690990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421292?

The tribunal order states: Josephus Schepers to pay Houzer Holdings Limited $388.00 from the bond

How much money was awarded in case 5421292?

Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Second-Hand Bed: $290.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421292?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13690990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 8, 24 Aileen Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421292 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421292 — net $388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Room 8	$30.00	Carpet Cleaning: Room 8
Cleaning: Room 8	$40.00	Cleaning: Room 8
Replace furnishings: Second-hand bed	$290.00	Replace furnishings: Second-hand bed
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$388.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$388.00

Order

Josephus Schepers to pay Houzer Holdings Limited $388.00 from the bond (6269976-010), calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was conducted by video conference. Mrs Valentine appeared for the landlord. Mr Schepers, the tenant, appeared by telephone.
The landlord claims compensation for cleaning costs, replacement of a damaged mattress, and associated disposal and delivery costs. Mr Schepers disputes the claim and says he cleaned the room before vacating. He also raised a number of concerns relating to the condition of the premises during the tenancy and indicated that he may file a separate application. Those matters are not before me in this proceeding and I make no findings about them. The boarding house
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The evidence is that the property is an eight-bedroom house. At the relevant time, four bedrooms were located within the main dwelling and there were additional sleepout rooms on the property. Occupants shared common facilities including a kitchen and bathroom facilities.
Mr Schepers occupied Room 8. The room was provided furnished, including a bed and mattress. Utilities and furniture were supplied as part of the boarding house arrangement. Tenant’s intended claims
During the hearing, Mr Schepers advised that he intends to file a separate application against the landlord. He referred to concerns about the condition of the premises, including alleged Healthy Homes issues, insulation, condensation, vines growing into the room, and problems with a sliding door. He also raised concerns regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of the tenancy and his ability to secure alternative accommodation.
As no application has been filed by Mr Schepers in relation to those matters, they are not before the Tribunal. Any such claims may be pursued in a separate application if he chooses to do so.

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.
I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord and the submissions of both parties. Although Mr Schepers says he cleaned the room before vacating, I am satisfied on the evidence that the room was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The photographs show a level of dirt and staining within the room that went beyond what would ordinarily be expected at the end of a tenancy. The landlord incurred costs for carpet cleaning and room cleaning. Invoices were provided in support of those costs.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The costs claimed for carpet cleaning and room cleaning are modest and supported by the evidence. I therefore award those cleaning costs.
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 landlord also seeks compensation for a replacement mattress.
The photographs show the mattress was in a poor condition at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord's evidence that the mattress could not reasonably be cleaned.
Mr Schepers submitted that the condition of the mattress was due to the absence of linen. However, Mrs Valentine gave evidence that linen was not supplied as part of the tenancy. Mr Schepers further submitted that MSD and Pegasus Health had supplied the linen and that a receipt existed. I have seen no receipt or other evidence from Mr Schepers to support that submission.
Regardless of the cause, I find that the mattress was left in a condition that went beyond fair wear and tear.
I am unable to determine precisely what caused the damage. However, that is not necessary for the purposes of this claim. The issue is whether the condition of the mattress exceeded ordinary wear and tear. On the evidence before me, I find that it did.
The landlord did not seek the cost of a new replacement mattress. Instead, compensation is sought based on the purchase of a second-hand mattress. In my view, this appropriately reflects depreciation and avoids betterment. The original mattress was approximately four years old by the end of the tenancy. The cost of a second-hand replacement therefore represents a fair assessment of the landlord's loss.
Accordingly, I award compensation for the replacement mattress. The amounts ordered are proved.
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. Disposal and delivery costs
The landlord also claims $40 for disposal of the mattress and $40 for delivery of the replacement mattress.
I decline these claims: a. First, no invoice or other documentary evidence was provided to establish these costs. b. Secondly, the photographs show one leg of the bed base had paint missing, exposing the timber beneath. It is unclear whether the claimed disposal costs relate solely to the mattress or whether they also include disposal of the bed base. No separate claim has been made in respect of the bed base. c. Thirdly, even if evidence of the costs had been produced, I would not have awarded them. In the circumstances of this boarding house operation, I consider the transportation and disposal of furniture of this nature to fall within the landlord's ordinary business expenses.
For those reasons, the claims for disposal and delivery costs are declined. Filing fee
Because Houzer Holdings Limited has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421292 — net $388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Room 8	$30.00	Carpet Cleaning: Room 8
Cleaning: Room 8	$40.00	Cleaning: Room 8
Replace furnishings: Second-hand bed	$290.00	Replace furnishings: Second-hand bed
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$388.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$388.00

Order

Josephus Schepers to pay Houzer Holdings Limited $388.00 from the bond (6269976-010), calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was conducted by video conference. Mrs Valentine appeared for the landlord. Mr Schepers, the tenant, appeared by telephone.
The landlord claims compensation for cleaning costs, replacement of a damaged mattress, and associated disposal and delivery costs. Mr Schepers disputes the claim and says he cleaned the room before vacating. He also raised a number of concerns relating to the condition of the premises during the tenancy and indicated that he may file a separate application. Those matters are not before me in this proceeding and I make no findings about them. The boarding house
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. The evidence is that the property is an eight-bedroom house. At the relevant time, four bedrooms were located within the main dwelling and there were additional sleepout rooms on the property. Occupants shared common facilities including a kitchen and bathroom facilities.
Mr Schepers occupied Room 8. The room was provided furnished, including a bed and mattress. Utilities and furniture were supplied as part of the boarding house arrangement. Tenant’s intended claims
During the hearing, Mr Schepers advised that he intends to file a separate application against the landlord. He referred to concerns about the condition of the premises, including alleged Healthy Homes issues, insulation, condensation, vines growing into the room, and problems with a sliding door. He also raised concerns regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of the tenancy and his ability to secure alternative accommodation.
As no application has been filed by Mr Schepers in relation to those matters, they are not before the Tribunal. Any such claims may be pursued in a separate application if he chooses to do so.

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.
I have considered the photographs provided by the landlord and the submissions of both parties. Although Mr Schepers says he cleaned the room before vacating, I am satisfied on the evidence that the room was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The photographs show a level of dirt and staining within the room that went beyond what would ordinarily be expected at the end of a tenancy. The landlord incurred costs for carpet cleaning and room cleaning. Invoices were provided in support of those costs.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The costs claimed for carpet cleaning and room cleaning are modest and supported by the evidence. I therefore award those cleaning costs.
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 landlord also seeks compensation for a replacement mattress.
The photographs show the mattress was in a poor condition at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord's evidence that the mattress could not reasonably be cleaned.
Mr Schepers submitted that the condition of the mattress was due to the absence of linen. However, Mrs Valentine gave evidence that linen was not supplied as part of the tenancy. Mr Schepers further submitted that MSD and Pegasus Health had supplied the linen and that a receipt existed. I have seen no receipt or other evidence from Mr Schepers to support that submission.
Regardless of the cause, I find that the mattress was left in a condition that went beyond fair wear and tear.
I am unable to determine precisely what caused the damage. However, that is not necessary for the purposes of this claim. The issue is whether the condition of the mattress exceeded ordinary wear and tear. On the evidence before me, I find that it did.
The landlord did not seek the cost of a new replacement mattress. Instead, compensation is sought based on the purchase of a second-hand mattress. In my view, this appropriately reflects depreciation and avoids betterment. The original mattress was approximately four years old by the end of the tenancy. The cost of a second-hand replacement therefore represents a fair assessment of the landlord's loss.
Accordingly, I award compensation for the replacement mattress. The amounts ordered are proved.
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. Disposal and delivery costs
The landlord also claims $40 for disposal of the mattress and $40 for delivery of the replacement mattress.
I decline these claims: a. First, no invoice or other documentary evidence was provided to establish these costs. b. Secondly, the photographs show one leg of the bed base had paint missing, exposing the timber beneath. It is unclear whether the claimed disposal costs relate solely to the mattress or whether they also include disposal of the bed base. No separate claim has been made in respect of the bed base. c. Thirdly, even if evidence of the costs had been produced, I would not have awarded them. In the circumstances of this boarding house operation, I consider the transportation and disposal of furniture of this nature to fall within the landlord's ordinary business expenses.
For those reasons, the claims for disposal and delivery costs are declined. Filing fee
Because Houzer Holdings Limited has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421292 — Cleanliness at Room 8, 24 Aileen Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421292 — Cleanliness at Room 8, 24 Aileen Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions