How much money was awarded in case 5431774?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431774?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13708248-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5431774?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431774?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13708248-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431774 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431774 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Bayleys Property Management Queenstown As The Agent For Nic Fraser must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being the reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Both parties want the bond refunded to them. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The two issues for me to decide are whether the house was left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy, and whether the tenant should pay an insurance excess for damage to the garage door.

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 photos from the exit inspection and an invoice for the cleaning. With one exception I find the house was left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy.

There is one photo showing scribble on the lower part of a blind. It seems likely to me it would have taken around 10 minutes to clean the blind. Given that the tenancy lasted for five years, and the landlord would have had to go to the house to carry out maintenance between tenancies anyway, I do not find I should make an order that the tenant pays for additional cleaning. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for an insurance excess because the tenant damaged the garage door during the tenancy. The landlord must prove that the damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

It seems likely the damage was more than fair wear and tear, so the tenant’s evidence is relevant. She said she had a new car and thought she had put the car in park. When she got out of the car it was in drive instead and it slowly rolled towards the garage door. This made a dent in the garage door. It seems most likely to me this damage was not careless or intentional. This means the tenant is not liable for the damage and the claim for the excess is dismissed. Other orders

I have organised for the bond to be refunded to the tenant.

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

There are applications 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 tenant’s name is suppressed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in the management of the bond refund process.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Bayleys Property Management Queenstown As The Agent For Nic Fraser must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being the reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both parties want the bond refunded to them. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The two issues for me to decide are whether the house was left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy, and whether the tenant should pay an insurance excess for damage to the garage door.

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 photos from the exit inspection and an invoice for the cleaning. With one exception I find the house was left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy.
There is one photo showing scribble on the lower part of a blind. It seems likely to me it would have taken around 10 minutes to clean the blind. Given that the tenancy lasted for five years, and the landlord would have had to go to the house to carry out maintenance between tenancies anyway, I do not find I should make an order that the tenant pays for additional cleaning. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for an insurance excess because the tenant damaged the garage door during the tenancy. The landlord must prove that the damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
It seems likely the damage was more than fair wear and tear, so the tenant’s evidence is relevant. She said she had a new car and thought she had put the car in park. When she got out of the car it was in drive instead and it slowly rolled towards the garage door. This made a dent in the garage door. It seems most likely to me this damage was not careless or intentional. This means the tenant is not liable for the damage and the claim for the excess is dismissed. Other orders
I have organised for the bond to be refunded to the tenant.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
There are applications 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 tenant’s name is suppressed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in the management of the bond refund process.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431774 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431774 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

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