What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456270 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5456270?

Property Damage: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $184.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456270?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13261416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456270 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5456270?

Property Damage: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $184.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456270?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13261416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3A King George Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5456270 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456270 — net $362.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$184.66	Water rates
Paint repair	$362.25	Paint repair
Net award	$362.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$362.25

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Maryvonne Vujanic $362.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $184.66 to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Maryvonne Vujanic immediately. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$184.66 Paint repair$362.25 Total award$546.91 Bond$184.66 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$362.25

Reasons

Ms [tenant’s surname] attended the hearing for the tenants.
Ms Miao attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord applies for water arrears, and compensation for the cost of cleaning and a minor paint repair.
The tenants do not oppose the order for water arrears but resist the compensation claims.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant who attended court submitted the tenants left the premises cleaner that they were at the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 2
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
The landlord relied on the entry and exit inspection photographs. However, the tenant prepared a table comparing the entry photographs with the exit photographs which indicated the tenants had left the premises cleaner than they had found them. The landlord could not rebut this evidence.
It follows, I am not satisfied that the tenants left the premises less than reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for minor paint damage?

During the tenancy, the tenants taped some curtains to the wall in one of the bedrooms. When the property manager pulled the tape away, the paint peeled off leaving an unsightly strip in the paintwork of about 75cm x 8cm.
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. 3
The tenants accept they used the tape on the wall without the landlord’s permission but blame the landlord for pulling the tape off and thereby damaging the wall paint when they should have applied heat or steam to the paint. However, the landlord’s photographs indicate the tenants had already peeled away some of the tape and attempted to touch-up the wall when the paint began to peel away. Nor should the landlord have to employ a professional in the first instance as the tenants’ suggested steam/heat approach would have required. I am satisfied that the tenants damaged the wall paint during the tenancy. The fact that much of the actual damage was not realised until the property manager tried to remove the tape does not exonerate the tenants from liability because the tenants caused the damage by using the tape without permission and that damage was foreseeable.
The tenants submit the landlord should have given them the opportunity to return to the premises and repair the wall themselves. However, the landlord does not have to give tenants the opportunity to carry out work on the premises. A property manager will typically instruct their own trusted professional rather than letting an unqualified tenant back onto the premises to do repairs. 3 See RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The tenants consider the landlord’s contractor’s quote is too expensive. However, the quote is consistent with others the Tribunal sees for similar work.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved. I have reduced the amount the tenants must pay the landlord to 75 per cent of the quoted cost of repair for betterment and depreciation. Bond
Ms Miao says that the Bond Centre retains $184.66 of the bond. That amount is to be released to the landlord. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
Non-publication is allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456270 — net $362.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$184.66	Water rates
Paint repair	$362.25	Paint repair
Net award	$362.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$362.25

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Maryvonne Vujanic $362.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $184.66 to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Maryvonne Vujanic immediately. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$184.66 Paint repair$362.25 Total award$546.91 Bond$184.66 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$362.25

Reasons

Ms [tenant’s surname] attended the hearing for the tenants.
Ms Miao attended the hearing for the landlord.
The landlord applies for water arrears, and compensation for the cost of cleaning and a minor paint repair.
The tenants do not oppose the order for water arrears but resist the compensation claims.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant who attended court submitted the tenants left the premises cleaner that they were at the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 2
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
The landlord relied on the entry and exit inspection photographs. However, the tenant prepared a table comparing the entry photographs with the exit photographs which indicated the tenants had left the premises cleaner than they had found them. The landlord could not rebut this evidence.
It follows, I am not satisfied that the tenants left the premises less than reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for minor paint damage?

During the tenancy, the tenants taped some curtains to the wall in one of the bedrooms. When the property manager pulled the tape away, the paint peeled off leaving an unsightly strip in the paintwork of about 75cm x 8cm.
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. 3
The tenants accept they used the tape on the wall without the landlord’s permission but blame the landlord for pulling the tape off and thereby damaging the wall paint when they should have applied heat or steam to the paint. However, the landlord’s photographs indicate the tenants had already peeled away some of the tape and attempted to touch-up the wall when the paint began to peel away. Nor should the landlord have to employ a professional in the first instance as the tenants’ suggested steam/heat approach would have required. I am satisfied that the tenants damaged the wall paint during the tenancy. The fact that much of the actual damage was not realised until the property manager tried to remove the tape does not exonerate the tenants from liability because the tenants caused the damage by using the tape without permission and that damage was foreseeable.
The tenants submit the landlord should have given them the opportunity to return to the premises and repair the wall themselves. However, the landlord does not have to give tenants the opportunity to carry out work on the premises. A property manager will typically instruct their own trusted professional rather than letting an unqualified tenant back onto the premises to do repairs. 3 See RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The tenants consider the landlord’s contractor’s quote is too expensive. However, the quote is consistent with others the Tribunal sees for similar work.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and occurred during the tenancy. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved. I have reduced the amount the tenants must pay the landlord to 75 per cent of the quoted cost of repair for betterment and depreciation. Bond
Ms Miao says that the Bond Centre retains $184.66 of the bond. That amount is to be released to the landlord. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456270 — Property damage at 3A King George Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456270 — Property damage at 3A King George Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Are the tenants liable for minor paint damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Are the tenants liable for minor paint damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions