What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5472155 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] are to pay Stable Property

How much money was awarded in case 5472155?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472155?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14014988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5472155 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] are to pay Stable Property

How much money was awarded in case 5472155?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472155?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14014988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Glamorgan Street, Northland, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472155 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472155 — net $299.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: by consent	$184.00	Cleaning: by consent
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$299.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$299.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] are to pay Stable Property Management Limited As Agent For Nancy Nee $299.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (BN-00025678) immediately apportioned as follows: Stable Property Management Limited As Agent For Nancy Nee: $299.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,701.00
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Stretton appeared for both tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy. 2 Cleaning 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 RTA, 40(1)(e).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and by consent I make an order for cleaning costs of $184. Lawns and weeding
The landlord has applied for $115 for lawns to be mowed and some weeding.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim and an invoice for a one-off lawn service and removing the weeds from the front and side courtyard.
The tenant disputed the claim.
The tenant said the original quote included clearing planter boxes and they do not consider they are responsible for this additional garden work. The tenant also said there was scaffolding in place at the end of the tenancy which impinged on their moving and ability to do the lawns and garden work.
I have reviewed the pre and post tenancy photographs provided and considered the oral evidence. The lawns required mowing and there were weeds on the courtyard that appear accessible and I consider the tenant should have removed these at the end of the tenancy. I consider the landlord has proven the amount claimed and it is ordered accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 4
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 5
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). 6 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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the 3 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 4 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 6 RTA s 49B(3)(a). tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
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. 9 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. 10
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet damage
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged where the tenant’s fed their pets. The carpet was threadbare and appears stained.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, I am dismissing the claim for compensation for these reasons: a. The landlord has only provided a quote in support of the claim, which I understand was to use the carpet available to patch repair the carpet. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided because the landlord may not pay the amounts quoted. The property manager indicated the property was going on the market after the end of this tenancy and he did not have confirmation that the carpet had been patch repaired. b. The landlord did not know the age of the carpet and said it would be an older type carpet and was certainly not new. The carpet was damaged at the commencement of the tenancy, without being patch repaired. In addition, there was patch repairs in some parts of the carpet. It appears to me on the evidence provided that the lounge carpet was due for full carpet replacement. 7 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 8 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 9 RTA s 49B(1). 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. c. Overall, I am not satisfied the landlord has proven a loss for which they should be compensated for. Bond
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered and the balance is to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fee
Because both parties have been partly successful in their claims, I decline to award either the filing fee, because they would in effect cancel each other out. Suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472155 — net $299.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: by consent	$184.00	Cleaning: by consent
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$299.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$299.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] are to pay Stable Property Management Limited As Agent For Nancy Nee $299.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (BN-00025678) immediately apportioned as follows: Stable Property Management Limited As Agent For Nancy Nee: $299.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,701.00
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Stretton appeared for both tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, part payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy. 2 Cleaning 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 RTA, 40(1)(e).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and by consent I make an order for cleaning costs of $184. Lawns and weeding
The landlord has applied for $115 for lawns to be mowed and some weeding.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim and an invoice for a one-off lawn service and removing the weeds from the front and side courtyard.
The tenant disputed the claim.
The tenant said the original quote included clearing planter boxes and they do not consider they are responsible for this additional garden work. The tenant also said there was scaffolding in place at the end of the tenancy which impinged on their moving and ability to do the lawns and garden work.
I have reviewed the pre and post tenancy photographs provided and considered the oral evidence. The lawns required mowing and there were weeds on the courtyard that appear accessible and I consider the tenant should have removed these at the end of the tenancy. I consider the landlord has proven the amount claimed and it is ordered accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 4
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 5
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). 6 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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the 3 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 4 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 6 RTA s 49B(3)(a). tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8
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. 9 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. 10
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet damage
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged where the tenant’s fed their pets. The carpet was threadbare and appears stained.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, I am dismissing the claim for compensation for these reasons: a. The landlord has only provided a quote in support of the claim, which I understand was to use the carpet available to patch repair the carpet. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided because the landlord may not pay the amounts quoted. The property manager indicated the property was going on the market after the end of this tenancy and he did not have confirmation that the carpet had been patch repaired. b. The landlord did not know the age of the carpet and said it would be an older type carpet and was certainly not new. The carpet was damaged at the commencement of the tenancy, without being patch repaired. In addition, there was patch repairs in some parts of the carpet. It appears to me on the evidence provided that the lounge carpet was due for full carpet replacement. 7 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 8 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 9 RTA s 49B(1). 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. c. Overall, I am not satisfied the landlord has proven a loss for which they should be compensated for. Bond
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered and the balance is to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fee
Because both parties have been partly successful in their claims, I decline to award either the filing fee, because they would in effect cancel each other out. Suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472155 — Cleanliness at 3 Glamorgan Street, Northland, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472155 — Cleanliness at 3 Glamorgan Street, Northland, Wellington 6012

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.