What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5430008 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 5430008?

Burn On Heatpump Remote: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Stain On Carpet: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5430008?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5430008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13481359-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5430008 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 5430008?

Burn On Heatpump Remote: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Stain On Carpet: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5430008?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5430008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13481359-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5430008 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5430008 — net $627.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$97.75	33. The tenant disputes any liability for the damage, she says that she has used the pole throughout the tenancy, and it has been installed in many rooms, it u…
Carpet Cleaning	$320.00	33. The tenant disputes any liability for the damage, she says that she has used the pole throughout the tenancy, and it has been installed in many rooms, it u…
Stain on carpet	$120.00	Stain on carpet
Repairs: curtain damage	$80.00	Repairs: curtain damage
Burn on Heatpump remote	$10.00	Burn on Heatpump remote
Net award	$627.75
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$627.75

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5430008 — net $627.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$97.75	33. The tenant disputes any liability for the damage, she says that she has used the pole throughout the tenancy, and it has been installed in many rooms, it u…
Carpet Cleaning	$320.00	33. The tenant disputes any liability for the damage, she says that she has used the pole throughout the tenancy, and it has been installed in many rooms, it u…
Stain on carpet	$120.00	Stain on carpet
Repairs: curtain damage	$80.00	Repairs: curtain damage
Burn on Heatpump remote	$10.00	Burn on Heatpump remote
Net award	$627.75
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$627.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details. The location of property can be published as being in Queenstown.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $627.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $627.75 [The tenant/s]: $3,772.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a six-year tenancy of a large three-bedroom home on a large section. At the beginning of the tenancy there was new carpets and curtains throughout the property. During the tenancy the landlord property manager was Ms M, Ms M and the tenant enjoyed a good relationship. The tenant tells me that the property was regularly inspected and that she was never given any notices nor were any concerns raised about the way she lived in the property or the condition of the property during the tenancy.
Shortly after the tenancy ended Ms M left the property management firm and these claims were made by someone else at the property management firm.
The tenancy ended when the landlord gave notice just outside of 21 days before the end of the fixed period. The tenant says that when the landlord gave notice, her two other flatmates left the tenancy- because they had to quickly secure other places to live in a difficult property tenancy market, meaning that for the last two weeks the tenant was solely responsible for the weekly rent. The tenant also says that given the time of year that the tenancy ended (early December) she found it extremely difficult to move out, find somewhere else to live, store her items, clean the property, continue working and prepare for some preplanned surgery. She says that she tried to work with Ms M to ensure that she fulfilled her responsibilities as tenant at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says having to move out of a six-year tenancy in Queenstown with only less than a months’ notice was extremely stressful.
The landlord is claiming: a. Damage to the backs of the curtains in bedrooms 1 and 2 (which the landlord says looks to be caused by cats clawing the back of the curtains) - $50 per curtain, the landlord is claiming compensation for accelerated damage. b. Tile damage for two areas in the dining room. The landlord says that it appears that this is impact damage. The landlord is seeking compensation for accelerated damage of $70 per tile. c. Damage for what appears to be a cigarette burn on the heat pump remote of $30.00. d. Damage to the paint work in the ceiling of $200. e. Damage to the curtains in the lounge – which appears to be a burn hole. The landlord is seeking $80.00 compensation. f. Carpet cleaning for the whole house of $460.00 g. Stain removal or damage for a large red stain in one of the bedrooms. The landlord seeks $120 for this damage. h. Cleaning of $316.25 i. The filing fee.
The tenant accepted there is a large red stain in one of the bedrooms occupied by her flatmate.
The tenant also accepted that she had found a burn mark about the size of a $1.00 coin in the lounge curtains- she believes it was caused by a lamp. She said that she had asked Ms M about this via text in November, but Ms M had not got back to her, she therefore assumed that Ms M would treat this as wear and tear.

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.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
It is not disputed that the tenant cleaned the property before she left and that some areas met the standard of reasonably clean. What is in dispute is did leave all the property reasonably clean and tidy?
Both parties submitted considerable evidence on this point. The landlord provided evidence of the areas that it says were not reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant provided correspondence between Ms M and her discussing the cleaning and videos showing the state of three areas – the bathroom and two bedrooms. The tenant submits that she cleaned in different areas of the house as she could. The flatmates bedroom and bathroom were able to be cleaned when they moved out and she took videos of those areas after she had done the cleaning. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.
The tenant says that the house is large, and the landlord has not provided evidence that would allow the tribunal to assess the overall condition of the property, rather the landlord has submitted photographs of specific areas that are close up. The tenant submits that these areas are minimal and are not a true reflection of the overall condition of the property.
The tenant also submits that the landlord had booked (well in advance of her leaving date) their cleaner to come in as soon as she left and that they are now trying to recover those costs from her.
The tenant also says that Ms M represented to her that she would be given an opportunity to rectify any issues with cleaning after the final inspection because Ms M was aware that the tenant wanted to keep her bond intact and was working hard to make sure that she fulfilled her obligations.
There is no obligation for a landlord to allow the tenant access to undertake further cleaning of the property after the tenancy ends.
I have viewed all the evidence, and I am satisfied that there were small areas that needed further some additional cleaning to bring the whole property up to a reasonable standard. I consider that they would have taken no more than 1.5 hours to clean those particular areas, and I award the landlord part of the cleaning costs to reflect that.
I observe that after a 6-year tenancy of a large home like this that I would expect that the landlord would want to do some additional cleaning at their own expense after the tenancy ends, especially if they had their own family moving in, as was happening in this case. Tenants should not be expected to pay for that cleaning. Most of the cleaning that was done by the landlord’s cleaner covered areas that the tenant had already cleaned to a reasonable standard.
The landlord is claiming $460.00 for carpet cleaning.
The tenant says that she used a rug doctor for some of the rooms but says that she did not get to do the lounge properly nor did she do her own bedroom properly.
I consider it reasonable to expect that a tenant who has lived in the property for 6 years to clean the carpets when they left. Especially when there has been pets in the property, as there was here. There is some staining on the carpets in the living room and bedroom, which shows that some cleaning was necessary in order to remove some stains.
I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for cleaning the carpets throughout the property because the video she uploaded, shows that the carpets in the 2 bedrooms appear reasonably clean (apart from the large stain in one of the bedrooms which I will deal with as damage) and she confirmed that she had cleaned those carpets with a rug doctor.
I have therefore reduced the amount awarded for the carpet cleaning.

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 is seeking compensation for damage which he says reflects the accelerated wear, in other words they will have replace items earlier than usual. The curtains
The tenant accepts that there was a small hole in the lounge curtains. The tenant is liable for this damage. The hole is more than fair wear and tear and I consider the amount claimed reasonable and that is awarded.
The landlord says that the damage to the back of the curtains, which appears to be pilling was likely caused by the tenant’s cat.
The landlord provided photographs of the back of the curtains which shows some marking. Whilst the landlord submits that the curtains were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy, I do not have any evidence that shows when the curtains were purchased or photographs of the back of the curtains at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the back of the curtains in bedroom 1 or 2 was caused by something the tenant or her pets did during the tenancy. There were never any concerns raised by the landlord about the tenant’s cats climbing or damaging curtains or other furnishings during the tenancy. The property manager at the hearing said that he believed that this was ‘cat’ damage because he had seen similar damage caused by cats at other properties. This evidence is speculative and does not satisfy me as to what caused the deterioration to the back of the curtains. The landlord’s claim for damage to the curtains is not proven and therefore fails. The heat pump remote.
The landlord asks for $30 because of a burn mark on the heat pump remote. The landlord confirms that the heat pump remote still works, but that it is unsightly and likely to need replacement earlier. The tenant accepts that the burn mark was made during her tenancy. She says that the heat pump remote still works.
I consider that the damage was done during the tenancy. I award a nominal amount of $10 for this damage to reflect the unsightliness of the burn mark. The ceiling
The landlord seeks $200 for damage to the paint work in the lounge ceiling. The landlord says that the tenant had a pole in the lounge which has caused ceiling damage. The landlord confirmed at hearing that the damage looks more to be from the way the ceiling has been cleaned, which has damaged the paint work.
The tenant disputes any liability for the damage, she says that she has used the pole throughout the tenancy, and it has been installed in many rooms, it uses pressure to remain in place and is not affixed to the ceiling. She says these poles are recommended as they cause no damage. She says that the ceiling is protected from damage, and that this is proven by the fact that none of the other places that she had the pole became damaged. She confirms that if a mark was left on the ceiling once the pole was removed that she would normally wipe it off by using a white sponge, or cleaning. She accepts that she did not clean the ring off the lounge ceiling. However, she says she raised issue with the paint bubbling and flaking during the tenancy with the property manager and produced correspondence which supported her claims.
It appears that the damage is likely to be caused by aging or defective paintwork. The landlord did not know when the ceilings were last painted. I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the damage and therefore I dismiss the landlord’s claims for damage to the ceiling. The stain in the bedroom.
The landlord sought $120 for a large red stain the bedroom. The tenant accepts that this occurred during the tenancy. Given the age of the carpets, I consider that the sum of $120 sought by the landlord is reasonable. The landlord may try to further remove the stain, and it is likely that if that fails that the carpet may have to be replaced earlier than it may have been because of the stain. Tile damage
The landlord seeks two areas of damage it says was caused during the tenant. The tenant says that there are small hairline cracks in the tiles, and she has no idea if these damaged areas occurred during the tenancy or not. She says they were not raised with her at any inspection and nor were they raised after the tenancy ended until this application.
The landlord submitted photographs of the areas of the tile damage in the pre tenancy inspection report and close up of the damage at the end of the tenancy. The photographs are taken two different perspectives, the pre tenancy are at quite a distance; the vacate are close up. I cannot tell if the cracks or damage were present in the pre tenancy inspection report so I cannot be satisfied with any likelihood as to when the damage occurred. I am also not satisfied as to what has caused the damage, it may be from impact, or it could be from the age and wear of the tiles. The landlord has not proven that the tenant damaged the tiles.
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.
I have not awarded the filing fee as the landlord has not been wholly successful. Name suppression.
I grant the parties name suppression; I do that because I consider that the effects of publication would be disproportionate to the claims. The Queenstown tenancy market is difficult for tenants and having any record of having claims against a tenant, however small, can have damaging consequences for a tenant. I consider that if tenants have a genuine dispute over their liability, then they should not be afraid of defending those claims in the Tribunal. The threat of public exposure and the damaging effects that that might have for any future tenancies may prevent tenants from defending claims that are relatively small and that is not in the public interest.
The tenant and the landlord have both been somewhat successful in this matter and therefore I grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5430008 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5430008 — Cleanliness

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions