What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475591 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 5475591?

Cleaning: $476.51 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Burnt Sink Fence: $29.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475591?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745652-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475591 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 5475591?

Cleaning: $476.51 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Burnt Sink Fence: $29.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475591?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745652-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5475591 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5475591 — net $663.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Rangehood and kitchen floor	$476.51	Cleaning: Rangehood and kitchen floor
Lawns and Garden work	$130.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Burnt sink fence	$29.08	Repairs: Burnt sink fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$663.59
Bond	$723.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$663.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Radhikesh Sharma and Ashwini Sharma to pay [The landlord/s] $663.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $723.24 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $663.59 Radhikesh Sharma and Ashwini Sharma: $59.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord sought reimbursement of $88.00 for cleaning materials and $476.51 for professional cleaning of the rangehood, kitchen floor and multiple carpet stains.
The Landlord provided photographs showing stains on the carpets in the lounge, bedroom, and rumpus room at the end of the tenancy, together with photographs of the kitchen flooring. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show visible staining. The photographs provided from the start of the tenancy were either taken from a distance or did not show the same areas of carpet as the end of the tenancy photographs. It was difficult to determine whether staining was caused by the Tenants during the tenancy.
The Tenant submitted that they engaged professional cleaners and provided an invoice in support of this. The Tenant stated that during the final inspection, the Property Manager advised, in the presence of the Tenants cleaner, that there were no concerns regarding the condition of the carpet. Relying on that advice, the Tenant dismissed the cleaner. The Tenant stated that concerns about the carpet were subsequently raised by the Landlord and, had they been informed at the time of the inspection, they would have instructed the cleaner to undertake further cleaning attempts. The Tenant also submitted that staining near the rumpus room resulted from rainwater entering through a pet door that was not locked. They further stated that the Landlord engaged their own cleaner to treat the stains, but the staining remained. The Tenant suggested that chemical contamination, caused may have contributed to the discolouration of the carpet.
In considering the evidence, I accept that the Property Manager initially advised the Tenant at the final inspection that the carpets appeared clean and tidy, before subsequently informing them that the Landlord was dissatisfied with their condition. This placed the Tenant at a disadvantage, as they reasonably relied on the Property Manager's assessment but were not given an opportunity to undertake any further cleaning. If the Landlord was going to express a different view from their agent, the Landlord should have attended the inspection. Despite this, the statutory obligation remains that the premises must be left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, and the photographic evidence shows that visible staining remained on the carpets.
While the Tenant argued they were not given a further opportunity to address the carpet issues, the Landlord was not obliged to permit additional cleaning. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The Landlord also claimed the cost of cleaning the kitchen floor and rangehood. Photographs showing the condition of both at the end of the tenancy were provided, together with an invoice substantiating the cleaning costs incurred.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the kitchen floor was not left in a clean condition and that the rangehood had a noticeable amount of grease and dirt. The photographs provided supports the Landlord's claim, and the cleaning costs claimed are reasonable and substantiated.
The Landlord also claimed $88.00 for cleaning materials. However, the evidence shows that the cleaning work was carried out by a professional cleaner who would ordinarily be expected to supply their own cleaning products and equipment as part of the service provided. To the extent that the Landlord claims additional cleaning materials were required for further cleaning undertaken personally, no evidence was provided identifying the other areas cleaned. In the absence of evidence to substantiate this expense, I am not satisfied that the claim for cleaning materials has been proved.
This part of the claim is dismissed.
The Landlord further claimed the cost of removing green waste and restoring the garden areas. The Landlord submitted that the garden beds required weeding and that weeds had become established throughout the gravel areas. Photographs were provided showing the condition of the garden and weeds at the end of the tenancy, together with an invoice for the costs of tidying the garden.
The Tenant submitted that they did tidy the garden but there were overhanging branches from the neighbours tree causing it to be untidy. He applied weedkiller two weeks before the end of the tenancy but he submitted there was an agreement with the Landlord that they trimmed the trees in the front driveway and he was to clear the weeds.
In considering the evidence from the photographs provided, the garden was not clean and tidy and there was no evidence that the Landlord agreed to trimming the trees. The costs have been substantiated by an invoice.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: Burn mark on fence by outdoor sink. The Landlord claimed for a burn mark on the fence by the outdoor sink and provided ingoing and outgoing inspection photographs. The ingoing inspection photograph shows the fence in an undamaged condition, with no visible burn mark. By contrast, the outgoing photograph clearly shows burn damage to the fence. While the Tenant submitted that the damage pre-existed the tenancy and was reported to the Landlord, they did not provide any evidence to support this. I therefore prefer to rely upon the photographs provided, which demonstrate that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The burn mark is damage beyond fair wear and tear, and the Tenant has not disproved the liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the Landlord has been successful with their claim, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.
As the Tenant has not been successful with their claim, name suppression is not granted and the Tenant shall cover their own costs for the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5475591 — net $663.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Rangehood and kitchen floor	$476.51	Cleaning: Rangehood and kitchen floor
Lawns and Garden work	$130.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Burnt sink fence	$29.08	Repairs: Burnt sink fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$663.59
Bond	$723.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$663.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Radhikesh Sharma and Ashwini Sharma to pay [The landlord/s] $663.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $723.24 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $663.59 Radhikesh Sharma and Ashwini Sharma: $59.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord sought reimbursement of $88.00 for cleaning materials and $476.51 for professional cleaning of the rangehood, kitchen floor and multiple carpet stains.
The Landlord provided photographs showing stains on the carpets in the lounge, bedroom, and rumpus room at the end of the tenancy, together with photographs of the kitchen flooring. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show visible staining. The photographs provided from the start of the tenancy were either taken from a distance or did not show the same areas of carpet as the end of the tenancy photographs. It was difficult to determine whether staining was caused by the Tenants during the tenancy.
The Tenant submitted that they engaged professional cleaners and provided an invoice in support of this. The Tenant stated that during the final inspection, the Property Manager advised, in the presence of the Tenants cleaner, that there were no concerns regarding the condition of the carpet. Relying on that advice, the Tenant dismissed the cleaner. The Tenant stated that concerns about the carpet were subsequently raised by the Landlord and, had they been informed at the time of the inspection, they would have instructed the cleaner to undertake further cleaning attempts. The Tenant also submitted that staining near the rumpus room resulted from rainwater entering through a pet door that was not locked. They further stated that the Landlord engaged their own cleaner to treat the stains, but the staining remained. The Tenant suggested that chemical contamination, caused may have contributed to the discolouration of the carpet.
In considering the evidence, I accept that the Property Manager initially advised the Tenant at the final inspection that the carpets appeared clean and tidy, before subsequently informing them that the Landlord was dissatisfied with their condition. This placed the Tenant at a disadvantage, as they reasonably relied on the Property Manager's assessment but were not given an opportunity to undertake any further cleaning. If the Landlord was going to express a different view from their agent, the Landlord should have attended the inspection. Despite this, the statutory obligation remains that the premises must be left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, and the photographic evidence shows that visible staining remained on the carpets.
While the Tenant argued they were not given a further opportunity to address the carpet issues, the Landlord was not obliged to permit additional cleaning. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The Landlord also claimed the cost of cleaning the kitchen floor and rangehood. Photographs showing the condition of both at the end of the tenancy were provided, together with an invoice substantiating the cleaning costs incurred.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the kitchen floor was not left in a clean condition and that the rangehood had a noticeable amount of grease and dirt. The photographs provided supports the Landlord's claim, and the cleaning costs claimed are reasonable and substantiated.
The Landlord also claimed $88.00 for cleaning materials. However, the evidence shows that the cleaning work was carried out by a professional cleaner who would ordinarily be expected to supply their own cleaning products and equipment as part of the service provided. To the extent that the Landlord claims additional cleaning materials were required for further cleaning undertaken personally, no evidence was provided identifying the other areas cleaned. In the absence of evidence to substantiate this expense, I am not satisfied that the claim for cleaning materials has been proved.
This part of the claim is dismissed.
The Landlord further claimed the cost of removing green waste and restoring the garden areas. The Landlord submitted that the garden beds required weeding and that weeds had become established throughout the gravel areas. Photographs were provided showing the condition of the garden and weeds at the end of the tenancy, together with an invoice for the costs of tidying the garden.
The Tenant submitted that they did tidy the garden but there were overhanging branches from the neighbours tree causing it to be untidy. He applied weedkiller two weeks before the end of the tenancy but he submitted there was an agreement with the Landlord that they trimmed the trees in the front driveway and he was to clear the weeds.
In considering the evidence from the photographs provided, the garden was not clean and tidy and there was no evidence that the Landlord agreed to trimming the trees. The costs have been substantiated by an invoice.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: Burn mark on fence by outdoor sink. The Landlord claimed for a burn mark on the fence by the outdoor sink and provided ingoing and outgoing inspection photographs. The ingoing inspection photograph shows the fence in an undamaged condition, with no visible burn mark. By contrast, the outgoing photograph clearly shows burn damage to the fence. While the Tenant submitted that the damage pre-existed the tenancy and was reported to the Landlord, they did not provide any evidence to support this. I therefore prefer to rely upon the photographs provided, which demonstrate that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The burn mark is damage beyond fair wear and tear, and the Tenant has not disproved the liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the Landlord has been successful with their claim, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.
As the Tenant has not been successful with their claim, name suppression is not granted and the Tenant shall cover their own costs for the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475591 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475591 — 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