What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459330 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 5459330?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Re Painting Stairwell Entrance: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459330?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13842248-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459330 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 5459330?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Re Painting Stairwell Entrance: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459330?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13842248-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459330 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459330 — net $1,373.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$495.00	Cleaning
Re painting stairwell entrance	$850.00	Re painting stairwell entrance
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,373.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,373.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,373.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,373.00 [The tenant/s]: $627.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the tenant disputes this having submitted a video of how she left the property.
I have considered all the photo evidence and submissions made by both parties. The photos of the shower, bathroom area and oven in particular are not reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant, as part of maintaining and keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy, and to ensure it will not block is required to keep the drain clean in the shower.
I accept that the property was tidy however such matters did require attention, and I accept the amounts are proven.

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:
The stair well walls required a repaint given a number of black marks were visible, as was a discolouration mark that could be seen in the photos. Some such marks could be deemed fair wear and tear however this was a tenancy that lasted one year and there were several marks.
Having considered all of the evidence I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has made an application for suppression. Although she has not been successful, the landlord does not oppose this. I do not see it is in the public interest to publish the details as the tenant is now aware of the obligation to clean the drain in the shower and be more thorough with the cleaning and publishing the details may prevent ongoing rental opportunities. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459330 — net $1,373.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$495.00	Cleaning
Re painting stairwell entrance	$850.00	Re painting stairwell entrance
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,373.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,373.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,373.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,373.00 [The tenant/s]: $627.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the tenant disputes this having submitted a video of how she left the property.
I have considered all the photo evidence and submissions made by both parties. The photos of the shower, bathroom area and oven in particular are not reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant, as part of maintaining and keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy, and to ensure it will not block is required to keep the drain clean in the shower.
I accept that the property was tidy however such matters did require attention, and I accept the amounts are proven.

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:
The stair well walls required a repaint given a number of black marks were visible, as was a discolouration mark that could be seen in the photos. Some such marks could be deemed fair wear and tear however this was a tenancy that lasted one year and there were several marks.
Having considered all of the evidence I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has made an application for suppression. Although she has not been successful, the landlord does not oppose this. I do not see it is in the public interest to publish the details as the tenant is now aware of the obligation to clean the drain in the shower and be more thorough with the cleaning and publishing the details may prevent ongoing rental opportunities. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459330 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459330 — 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