What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469689 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5469689?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469689?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13402957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469689 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5469689?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469689?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13402957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18 Charlotte Drive, , Omokoroa 3114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469689 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469689 — net $272.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$300.00	$28.00
Net award	$272.00
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$272.00

Order

There is an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details
[The tenant/s] is to pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Abbie & Rob Flaherty $222.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for the bathroom basin is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Abbie & Rob Flaherty: $222.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,978.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
There is a dispute about the $3,200 bond.
The landlord seeks total compensation $2,126.75 for cleaning ($1,058.13) and damage to a basin in the bathroom ($1,386.75).
The tenant agrees to pay some cleaning, but disputes the amount and disputes that she is responsible for the damage to the basin.
The onus is on the landlord to provide the evidence to establish that they are entitled to part of the bond. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs showing some cleaning was required. There were no photos which showed the overall condition to assess whether the premises were reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord paid for a commercial clean and submitted an invoice for $1,058.13.
It was agreed that the tenant is not responsible for the total cost of the clean.
The tenant accepted that the shower needed cleaning and so did the sliding door tracks. She said she did clean the oven and the windows. The tenant had agreed to pay half of the cleaning costs, but on further review of the invoice, she did not agree with all of the items.
Having viewed the photographs, I have decided that the tenant should pay $300 for approximately six hours’ cleaning for: a. the shower b. wiping down the cupboards c. cleaning the door and window tracks

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.
There is no dispute that during the tenancy a crack appeared in the bathroom sink. On 3 December 2024, the tenant messaged the property manager saying: Hey Alex, I will attach some pictures. I’ve leant on the bathroom sink today, not even very hard and there’s a hairline crack on top of the bench. It’s barely noticeable but it’s still there. Please let me know what I need to do to get it fixed.
The landlord took no action at that time. They have since obtained two quotes for repairing the basin. They are seeking the amount of the lesser quote, which is $1,386.75. The basin has still not been repaired.
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.
The landlord has not made an insurance claim because the excess is $1,000.00, which is nearly the total amount of the repair.
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.
There is no evidence about whether the damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance.
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 tenant said that she was simply leaning against the basin to wipe the mirror. She does not consider that it was caused by a careless or intentional act. She queries whether the proximity of the premises to a railway line has caused the integrity of the basin to be compromised by movement of the ground. Since the crack first appeared, it has got wider.
The landlord says that the tenant must have done something unusual to have caused the crack.
I agree that it is unusual that the crack has simply appeared without some sort of force. However, the onus is on the landlord to establish on the balance of probabilities that the crack is as the result of some careless or intentional act on the tenant’s part.
The tenant notified the landlord as soon as the crack occurred. She says she was simply leaning on the basin. There is no evidence of any other damage consistent with something being dropped.
Although not satisfactory for the landlord, I am unable to determine on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused by the careless or intentional act of the tenant.
I also add that even if I was satisfied that the tenant had caused the damage, I would not usually order compensation on the basis of a quote. The damage occurred over 15 months ago and has still not been repaired. The landlord has not sustained a loss.
Because Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Abbie & Rob Flaherty has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and there is an order for suppression of her name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469689 — net $272.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$300.00	$28.00
Net award	$272.00
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$272.00

Order

There is an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details
[The tenant/s] is to pay Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Abbie & Rob Flaherty $222.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for the bathroom basin is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Abbie & Rob Flaherty: $222.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,978.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
There is a dispute about the $3,200 bond.
The landlord seeks total compensation $2,126.75 for cleaning ($1,058.13) and damage to a basin in the bathroom ($1,386.75).
The tenant agrees to pay some cleaning, but disputes the amount and disputes that she is responsible for the damage to the basin.
The onus is on the landlord to provide the evidence to establish that they are entitled to part of the bond. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs showing some cleaning was required. There were no photos which showed the overall condition to assess whether the premises were reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord paid for a commercial clean and submitted an invoice for $1,058.13.
It was agreed that the tenant is not responsible for the total cost of the clean.
The tenant accepted that the shower needed cleaning and so did the sliding door tracks. She said she did clean the oven and the windows. The tenant had agreed to pay half of the cleaning costs, but on further review of the invoice, she did not agree with all of the items.
Having viewed the photographs, I have decided that the tenant should pay $300 for approximately six hours’ cleaning for: a. the shower b. wiping down the cupboards c. cleaning the door and window tracks

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.
There is no dispute that during the tenancy a crack appeared in the bathroom sink. On 3 December 2024, the tenant messaged the property manager saying: Hey Alex, I will attach some pictures. I’ve leant on the bathroom sink today, not even very hard and there’s a hairline crack on top of the bench. It’s barely noticeable but it’s still there. Please let me know what I need to do to get it fixed.
The landlord took no action at that time. They have since obtained two quotes for repairing the basin. They are seeking the amount of the lesser quote, which is $1,386.75. The basin has still not been repaired.
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.
The landlord has not made an insurance claim because the excess is $1,000.00, which is nearly the total amount of the repair.
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.
There is no evidence about whether the damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance.
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 tenant said that she was simply leaning against the basin to wipe the mirror. She does not consider that it was caused by a careless or intentional act. She queries whether the proximity of the premises to a railway line has caused the integrity of the basin to be compromised by movement of the ground. Since the crack first appeared, it has got wider.
The landlord says that the tenant must have done something unusual to have caused the crack.
I agree that it is unusual that the crack has simply appeared without some sort of force. However, the onus is on the landlord to establish on the balance of probabilities that the crack is as the result of some careless or intentional act on the tenant’s part.
The tenant notified the landlord as soon as the crack occurred. She says she was simply leaning on the basin. There is no evidence of any other damage consistent with something being dropped.
Although not satisfactory for the landlord, I am unable to determine on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused by the careless or intentional act of the tenant.
I also add that even if I was satisfied that the tenant had caused the damage, I would not usually order compensation on the basis of a quote. The damage occurred over 15 months ago and has still not been repaired. The landlord has not sustained a loss.
Because Advantage Realty Limited As Agent For Abbie & Rob Flaherty has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and there is an order for suppression of her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469689 — Cleanliness at 18 Charlotte Drive, , Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469689 — Cleanliness at 18 Charlotte Drive, , Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions