What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439229 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 5439229?

Cleaning: $664.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $52.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13677093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439229 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 5439229?

Cleaning: $664.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $52.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13677093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439229 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439229 — net $1,498.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$664.00	Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$782.00	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$52.90	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,498.90
Bond	$2,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,498.90

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] is to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe As Agent For Chang, Qioyan (Chang And Li Family Trust) $1,498.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe As Agent For Chang, Qioyan (Chang And Li Family Trust): $1,498.90 [The tenant/s]: $1,201.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
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. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
A rent credit of $1,110.65 exists and the tenant is to confirm to the landlord the back account for return payment of this.

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 (RTA).
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpets required cleaning.
The tenant accepted some rubbish/items required removal and the invoiced cost of $52.90 for this is awarded.
The tenant did not dispute the carpet required further cleaning and the invoiced cost of $664.00 is awarded.
The same invoice claimed 18.75 hours for cleaning. The tenant disputes further cleaning was required. The evidential burden rests with the applicant and the exit photos fail to establish cleaning being required to the level expected of the tenant. One cupboard was missed and required a wipe out required but otherwise I do not find the landlord has proven this cleaning was required. The effort required as evidenced was very minimal and I decline to make any partial award for cleaning.
The tenancy was ended by the landlord via appropriate notice as the house was to be sold. Further owner activity at the premises occurred, after possession returned, in preparation for marketing. It has since sold but the listing (with the same company) is available online and it states “Just refreshed with brand new carpet, fresh paint throughout, and new curtains – move in”. The listing photos confirm significant redecoration effort throughout.
Section 49 RTA requires a party to mitigate damage or a loss. It is unfortunate the carpet was cleaned then replaced with new prior to marketing, as a more mutually beneficial agreement may have been reached. However I accept the right of the landlord to approach the problem as it did given some prospect of carpet returning to a state that might have avoided replacement. I have also considered the internal redecorating pre-sale as an exercise that may have consequentially addressed some historic issues.
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.
During the exit the garage door glass was broken. The tenant accepted liability and the invoice of $782.00 establishes the cost of replacement. This is awarded in full. Filing fee
Given both parties have enjoyed some success I leave each party to carry their filing costs Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. She has not been substantially successfully across both applications, but I have considered the prior attempts to settle in good faith and ongoing engagement. The failure to resolve this, in part, appears to be some misinformation to the tenant regarding liability (based on the determination here). I consider the tenant interests outweigh any public interest. I have exercised my own initiative to order tenant name and details suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439229 — net $1,498.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$664.00	Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$782.00	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$52.90	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,498.90
Bond	$2,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,498.90

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] is to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe As Agent For Chang, Qioyan (Chang And Li Family Trust) $1,498.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe As Agent For Chang, Qioyan (Chang And Li Family Trust): $1,498.90 [The tenant/s]: $1,201.10

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
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. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
A rent credit of $1,110.65 exists and the tenant is to confirm to the landlord the back account for return payment of this.

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 (RTA).
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpets required cleaning.
The tenant accepted some rubbish/items required removal and the invoiced cost of $52.90 for this is awarded.
The tenant did not dispute the carpet required further cleaning and the invoiced cost of $664.00 is awarded.
The same invoice claimed 18.75 hours for cleaning. The tenant disputes further cleaning was required. The evidential burden rests with the applicant and the exit photos fail to establish cleaning being required to the level expected of the tenant. One cupboard was missed and required a wipe out required but otherwise I do not find the landlord has proven this cleaning was required. The effort required as evidenced was very minimal and I decline to make any partial award for cleaning.
The tenancy was ended by the landlord via appropriate notice as the house was to be sold. Further owner activity at the premises occurred, after possession returned, in preparation for marketing. It has since sold but the listing (with the same company) is available online and it states “Just refreshed with brand new carpet, fresh paint throughout, and new curtains – move in”. The listing photos confirm significant redecoration effort throughout.
Section 49 RTA requires a party to mitigate damage or a loss. It is unfortunate the carpet was cleaned then replaced with new prior to marketing, as a more mutually beneficial agreement may have been reached. However I accept the right of the landlord to approach the problem as it did given some prospect of carpet returning to a state that might have avoided replacement. I have also considered the internal redecorating pre-sale as an exercise that may have consequentially addressed some historic issues.
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.
During the exit the garage door glass was broken. The tenant accepted liability and the invoice of $782.00 establishes the cost of replacement. This is awarded in full. Filing fee
Given both parties have enjoyed some success I leave each party to carry their filing costs Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. She has not been substantially successfully across both applications, but I have considered the prior attempts to settle in good faith and ongoing engagement. The failure to resolve this, in part, appears to be some misinformation to the tenant regarding liability (based on the determination here). I consider the tenant interests outweigh any public interest. I have exercised my own initiative to order tenant name and details suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439229 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439229 — Property damage

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