What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423587?

The tribunal order states: Ana Malia Poe must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,875.40

How much money was awarded in case 5423587?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $161.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Weed Eat The Section: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423587?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423587?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13441993-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423587?

The tribunal order states: Ana Malia Poe must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,875.40

How much money was awarded in case 5423587?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $161.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Weed Eat The Section: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423587?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423587?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13441993-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Manatu Lane, Kelston, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423587 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423587 — net $1,875.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: cupboards	$60.00	the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…
Cleaning: rangehood	$40.00	the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…
Cleaning: rest of the house	$300.00	the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…
Rubbish removal: outside	$250.00	Rubbish removal: outside
Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage
Repairs: to walls	$161.40	Repairs: to walls
Weed eat the section	$300.00	Weed eat the section
Net award	$1,875.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,875.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423587 — net $1,875.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Cleaning: cupboards

$60.00

the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…

Cleaning: rangehood

$40.00

the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…

Cleaning: rest of the house

$300.00

the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…

Rubbish removal: outside

$250.00

Rubbish removal: outside

Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage

$1,000.00

Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage

Repairs: to walls

$161.40

Repairs: to walls

Weed eat the section

$300.00

Weed eat the section

Net award

$1,875.40

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,875.40

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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 was provided with good photos taken at the end of the tenancy and the house was not left in a reasonable condition. The amounts allowed for the cupboards, the range hood and the rubbish removal seem reasonable to me, based on the evidence provided and my knowledge of similar claims.

I have reduced the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RTA requires from tenants. In most cases the presence of fly spots on ceilings, light fittings and smoke alarms is fair wear and tear. They do not affect the day to day life of the tenant and they are not part of a usual cleaning routine. I find that wiping all the walls and ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility. I have allowed an amount for cleaning that seems reasonable to me.

The full cost of the weed eating is allowed because parts of the section were very overgrown, and the section was the tenant’s responsibility.

Is the tenant 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 tenant must prove she 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 tenant agreed to claims for repairs to the walls. She said these happened when furniture was being moved around the house. I can see the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It seems most likely to me from the number of holes that the damage was careless and the tenant should pay for the repairs. The amounts claimed are reasonable.

The claim for the door was withdrawn at the hearing.

The claim for the towel rail is dismissed because the tenant’s evidence the rail became loose and came off the wall is credible. I do not find there damage more than fair wear and tear.

The claim for hanging the door on the hot water cupboard is also dismissed. The tenant said the door was intact when she moved out. I’m not sure what happened between moving out and the final inspection but her evidence that she was not responsible for this small claim - when she accepted everything else - is credible. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage during the tenancy. Suppression

The landlord has asked for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.

The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interst in social housing. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interst when tenants owe money at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423587 — net $1,875.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: cupboards	$60.00	the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…
Cleaning: rangehood	$40.00	the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…
Cleaning: rest of the house	$300.00	the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…
Rubbish removal: outside	$250.00	Rubbish removal: outside
Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage
Repairs: to walls	$161.40	Repairs: to walls
Weed eat the section	$300.00	Weed eat the section
Net award	$1,875.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,875.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423587 — net $1,875.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Cleaning: cupboards

$60.00

the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…

Cleaning: rangehood

$40.00

the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…

Cleaning: rest of the house

$300.00

the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RT…

Rubbish removal: outside

$250.00

Rubbish removal: outside

Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage

$1,000.00

Rubbish removal: inside the house and the garage

Repairs: to walls

$161.40

Repairs: to walls

Weed eat the section

$300.00

Weed eat the section

Net award

$1,875.40

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,875.40

Order

Ana Malia Poe must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,875.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $236.00 (BN-10052031) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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 was provided with good photos taken at the end of the tenancy and the house was not left in a reasonable condition. The amounts allowed for the cupboards, the range hood and the rubbish removal seem reasonable to me, based on the evidence provided and my knowledge of similar claims.
I have reduced the claim for cleaning the whole house because the landlord said the claim included wiping all walls and ceilings because of fly spots. This is not what the RTA requires from tenants. In most cases the presence of fly spots on ceilings, light fittings and smoke alarms is fair wear and tear. They do not affect the day to day life of the tenant and they are not part of a usual cleaning routine. I find that wiping all the walls and ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility. I have allowed an amount for cleaning that seems reasonable to me.
The full cost of the weed eating is allowed because parts of the section were very overgrown, and the section was the tenant’s responsibility.

Is the tenant 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 tenant must prove she 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 tenant agreed to claims for repairs to the walls. She said these happened when furniture was being moved around the house. I can see the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It seems most likely to me from the number of holes that the damage was careless and the tenant should pay for the repairs. The amounts claimed are reasonable.
The claim for the door was withdrawn at the hearing.
The claim for the towel rail is dismissed because the tenant’s evidence the rail became loose and came off the wall is credible. I do not find there damage more than fair wear and tear.
The claim for hanging the door on the hot water cupboard is also dismissed. The tenant said the door was intact when she moved out. I’m not sure what happened between moving out and the final inspection but her evidence that she was not responsible for this small claim - when she accepted everything else - is credible. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage during the tenancy. Suppression
The landlord has asked for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interst in social housing. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interst when tenants owe money at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423587 — Cleanliness at 13 Manatu Lane, Kelston, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423587 — Cleanliness at 13 Manatu Lane, Kelston, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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