What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463330 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 5463330?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meter Box: $820.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463330 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 5463330?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meter Box: $820.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463330 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5463330 — net $948.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning contribution	$100.00	Cleaning contribution
Repairs: Meter box	$820.55	Repairs: Meter box
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$948.55
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$948.55

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Scott Paul Jenkins and Destiny Jasmine Thompson Neketai to pay [The landlord] $948.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $948.55 Scott Paul Jenkins and Destiny Jasmine Thompson Neketai: $1,011.45

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seek compensation for the $941.56 they spent getting the premise deep cleaned. The landlord provided photographs to support this claim that showed some door tracks and skirting boards that required wiping or that were not pristine, and some fly excrement spots that were missed when the tenants cleaned. Additionally, the landlord says the shower trap was not cleaned out and had some residue. However, overall, the house appeared reasonably clean and tidy to me, albeit not spotless, commercially deep-cleaned, or to a hotel standard.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The tenants provided evidence that they cleaned the house themselves and left it in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord’s claim for full compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim as the provided evidence show the premise was overall at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”, but for around $100.00 of the cleaning costs for the odd missed dirt, dust, fly excrement. I therefore award the landlord $100.00 contribution towards the cleaning costs it incurred.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants 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 landlord provided evidence that an electrician checked the meter board at the start of the tenancy, confirmed it was compliant and had the power connected to the premise. Near the end of the tenancy, an electrician was called to investigate a loose cover on the switch box. This investigation report from the electrician states “Upon opening meter box I found 3 switches installed behind the meter. One on each of the incoming and outgoing phase wires to the meter and one on the neutral wire to the meter. This is highly illegal as installing a switch on the neutral to the meter and turning it off means the neutral will not read the power being used. I removed the switches and rejoined the cables to reinstate the meterbox back to a compliant state. Completed Electrical testing / Inspection and a COV as requested by Meridian Energy so the property can be re livened.”
The tenants claim they did not make these illegal modifications and do not know how they were made or by whom. The female tenant did state that the power bills seemed lower than would be expected for their usage. However, she states the meter box was inside by the bathroom, and they were not aware of anyone having gained entry to undertake these illegal modifications.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name 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 landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5463330 — net $948.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning contribution	$100.00	Cleaning contribution
Repairs: Meter box	$820.55	Repairs: Meter box
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$948.55
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$948.55

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Scott Paul Jenkins and Destiny Jasmine Thompson Neketai to pay [The landlord] $948.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $948.55 Scott Paul Jenkins and Destiny Jasmine Thompson Neketai: $1,011.45

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seek compensation for the $941.56 they spent getting the premise deep cleaned. The landlord provided photographs to support this claim that showed some door tracks and skirting boards that required wiping or that were not pristine, and some fly excrement spots that were missed when the tenants cleaned. Additionally, the landlord says the shower trap was not cleaned out and had some residue. However, overall, the house appeared reasonably clean and tidy to me, albeit not spotless, commercially deep-cleaned, or to a hotel standard.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The tenants provided evidence that they cleaned the house themselves and left it in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord’s claim for full compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim as the provided evidence show the premise was overall at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”, but for around $100.00 of the cleaning costs for the odd missed dirt, dust, fly excrement. I therefore award the landlord $100.00 contribution towards the cleaning costs it incurred.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants 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 landlord provided evidence that an electrician checked the meter board at the start of the tenancy, confirmed it was compliant and had the power connected to the premise. Near the end of the tenancy, an electrician was called to investigate a loose cover on the switch box. This investigation report from the electrician states “Upon opening meter box I found 3 switches installed behind the meter. One on each of the incoming and outgoing phase wires to the meter and one on the neutral wire to the meter. This is highly illegal as installing a switch on the neutral to the meter and turning it off means the neutral will not read the power being used. I removed the switches and rejoined the cables to reinstate the meterbox back to a compliant state. Completed Electrical testing / Inspection and a COV as requested by Meridian Energy so the property can be re livened.”
The tenants claim they did not make these illegal modifications and do not know how they were made or by whom. The female tenant did state that the power bills seemed lower than would be expected for their usage. However, she states the meter box was inside by the bathroom, and they were not aware of anyone having gained entry to undertake these illegal modifications.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name 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 landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463330 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5463330 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions