What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456390 about?

The tribunal order states: Danyelle Velvin-Scott to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Louise

How much money was awarded in case 5456390?

Cleaning: $186.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Woodshed: $326.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456390?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13925251-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456390 about?

The tribunal order states: Danyelle Velvin-Scott to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Louise

How much money was awarded in case 5456390?

Cleaning: $186.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Woodshed: $326.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456390?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13925251-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Queens Road, Glen Avon, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5456390 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456390 — net $660.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Woodshed	$326.78	Repairs: Woodshed
Carpet Cleaning	$186.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$660.78
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$660.78

Danyelle Velvin-Scott to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Louise Sybrandy & Alex Trowbridge $660.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (BN-00038870) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Louise Sybrandy & Alex Trowbridge: $660.78 [The tenant/s]: $2,019.22

The landlord claims for the towel rail and laundry latch are withdrawn.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

No one attended the hearing on behalf of the tenant. I am satisfied she has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.

She sis request an adjournment but this was denied and communicated to the tenant in advance of the hearing. There was insufficient evidence to support the request. Civil burden of proof

As explained in my earlier order, the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. It is the applicant that must prove their case.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. The tenant application

The tenant bought a number of claims. These are detailed in an earlier case management order of the Tribunal.

The tenant bears the burden of proof in relation to her claims and must attend the hearing to persuade me why I should grant her application including why she should be granted compensation/exemplary damages.

Given that the tenant did not attend the hearing to bring her case, her application is accordingly dismissed. The landlord claims

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Withdrawn claims

The landlord claims for damage to the towel rail and laundry latch are withdrawn. Cleaning and carpet cleaning

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. 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, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. 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.

There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.

I accept that the evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

I accept that there was new staining to the carpet in the lounge/dining area and two of the bedrooms. I award $186 in respect of this carpet cleaning. I have not awarded the full amount sought by the landlord because carpet cleaning was done throughout the house but the evidence did not support the need to clean the carpet throughout. The sum I have awarded is reasonable given the extent of the staining proven.

Turning to the general cleaning, few photographs were provided to support the sum claimed. There can be frequently differing opinions as to whether premises are reasonably clean.

Ultimately, however, the obligation to prove the claim is on the landlord, it is the landlord who must show that the premises are not reasonably clean, and if the landlord did not establish that, then the claim would be dismissed.

The brief statement from the cleaner expressing their opinion that the premises were not fit to be re-tenanted is of limited evidential value. Such a statement is largely a subjective assessment and does not provide the Tribunal with the factual detail necessary to independently evaluate the condition of the premises. Photographs are generally more persuasive because they provide objective evidence visually showing the actual state of the property, allowing the Tribunal to assess the extent and nature of any cleaning issues for itself. This means that invariably, these sorts of claims are determined based on the photographic evidence, which allows the Tribunal to make its own determination as to whether the cleaning was a reasonable level.

Having reviewed the evidence, particularly the photographs, I conclude that this claim has been established but only as it relates to the oven, dining curtain (spot clean) and hallway wall. I consider a fair level of compensation for that cleaning to be $120.

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.

I am satisfied that damage was caused to the wall of the woodshed during the tenancy where large holes were left. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant records herself in a document filed that the damage was done by her children looking for ants. The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant complied with their obligations, but should be neither better nor worse off as a result of the breach. In this case, the landlord repaired the damaged wall by covering it with plywood. I am not satisfied that this repair has resulted in an improvement. Accordingly, I do not consider that the landlord has been bettered by the repair, and so no deduction for betterment or depreciation is made. Bond

The bond has been split between the parties to match the order that has been made. Filing fee and suppression of identifying details

Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Louise Sybrandy & Alex Trowbridge 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 (see S 95A RTA).

The landlord does not seek suppression of their identifying details so this is not awarded. I see no reason to award the tenant suppression she has not been substantially successful and the dispute before me was not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456390 — net $660.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Woodshed	$326.78	Repairs: Woodshed
Carpet Cleaning	$186.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$660.78
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$660.78