What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450308 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 5450308?

Cleaning: $1,803.96 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13847021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450308 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 5450308?

Cleaning: $1,803.96 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13847021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5450308 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5450308 — net $2,422.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated	$225.63	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated
Pest control	$165.00	Pest control
Cleaning (by consent	$1,803.96	Cleaning (by consent
Repairs: Front door repair and paint (reduced	$200.00	Repairs: Front door repair and paint (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,422.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,422.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,422.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims in respect of rent arrears, electrical callout fee, and the second pest control fee have been paid from the bond and are now withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant was support by her brother during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord was also required to have a pest controller attend for an infestation of cockroaches.
The landlord provided comprehensive photographic evidence along with an invoice from the pest control company (Fumetech) and a cleaning invoice.
Having sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of these two claims I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The claims relating to cleaning and pest control are established. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to carpet, furniture and front door. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Carpet claim
The landlord says that the carpet was damaged beyond repair and had to be replaced. They say that it was significant odour damage. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the carpet was approximately 8 years old.
I allow the claim for carpet replacement but apply depreciation reflecting the age of the carpet. Accordingly, the amount of $225.63, being 10% of the value after depreciation is applied. Front door repair
The landlord claims for the repair and paint of the apartment front door. Photographic evidence was provided showing what appear to be scratch marks on the door.
The tenant says that over the years her walker frame has scratched the door as she has entered and exited the apartment. The tenant suggests that this may be largely fair, wear and tear.
I find that this claim is finely balanced and one which the tenant should bear a degree of responsibility for. The landlord did not provide an entry photographs of the door meaning I am unable to assess the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy. I also take into account that the tenant resided at the apartment for 5 years.
I allow the landlord’s claim for door repair but reduce the amount awarded to $200.00 as a fair contribution towards the damage.
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 carpet and front door at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved. Furniture replacement
The landlord claims that two beds and a couch required replacement. They also claim for the cost of freight.
The landlord has not provided adequate evidence in support of this claim. They have only provided a typed quote from what appears to be the owner. There is no other supporting evidence.
As explained to the landlord during the hearing the Tribunal cannot award claims based on quotes. This is because a quote does not prove that the landlord has suffered a financial loss.
Accordingly, the claim in respect of the furniture is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
I have also considered whether the tenant should have the benefit of name suppression. Based on the letter provided by her Te Whatu Ora registered social worker, outlining her medical conditions I am of the view that publishing her name would not be in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of name in respect of the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5450308 — net $2,422.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated	$225.63	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated
Pest control	$165.00	Pest control
Cleaning (by consent	$1,803.96	Cleaning (by consent
Repairs: Front door repair and paint (reduced	$200.00	Repairs: Front door repair and paint (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,422.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,422.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,422.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims in respect of rent arrears, electrical callout fee, and the second pest control fee have been paid from the bond and are now withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference. The tenant was support by her brother during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord was also required to have a pest controller attend for an infestation of cockroaches.
The landlord provided comprehensive photographic evidence along with an invoice from the pest control company (Fumetech) and a cleaning invoice.
Having sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of these two claims I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The claims relating to cleaning and pest control are established. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to carpet, furniture and front door. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Carpet claim
The landlord says that the carpet was damaged beyond repair and had to be replaced. They say that it was significant odour damage. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the carpet was approximately 8 years old.
I allow the claim for carpet replacement but apply depreciation reflecting the age of the carpet. Accordingly, the amount of $225.63, being 10% of the value after depreciation is applied. Front door repair
The landlord claims for the repair and paint of the apartment front door. Photographic evidence was provided showing what appear to be scratch marks on the door.
The tenant says that over the years her walker frame has scratched the door as she has entered and exited the apartment. The tenant suggests that this may be largely fair, wear and tear.
I find that this claim is finely balanced and one which the tenant should bear a degree of responsibility for. The landlord did not provide an entry photographs of the door meaning I am unable to assess the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy. I also take into account that the tenant resided at the apartment for 5 years.
I allow the landlord’s claim for door repair but reduce the amount awarded to $200.00 as a fair contribution towards the damage.
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 carpet and front door at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved. Furniture replacement
The landlord claims that two beds and a couch required replacement. They also claim for the cost of freight.
The landlord has not provided adequate evidence in support of this claim. They have only provided a typed quote from what appears to be the owner. There is no other supporting evidence.
As explained to the landlord during the hearing the Tribunal cannot award claims based on quotes. This is because a quote does not prove that the landlord has suffered a financial loss.
Accordingly, the claim in respect of the furniture is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
I have also considered whether the tenant should have the benefit of name suppression. Based on the letter provided by her Te Whatu Ora registered social worker, outlining her medical conditions I am of the view that publishing her name would not be in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of name in respect of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450308 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450308 — 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