What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5480831 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Glasshouse Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5480831?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5480831?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5480831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13703834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5480831 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Glasshouse Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5480831?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5480831?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5480831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13703834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 1 Splitt Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5480831 — Cleanliness

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Sarah Elisabeth Philp And [The landlord/s] $841.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (BN-16864290) immediately apportioned as follows: Glasshouse Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Sarah Elisabeth Philp And [The landlord/s]: $1,273.47 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,006.53

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants I am told were both represented by [The tenant/s].
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied to have their bond refunded.
This tenancy commenced on 14 September 2021 and the property was new at the commencement 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, and remove all rubbish, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant produced evidence of the costs they incurred to have the property cleaned. However, accepted that if further cleaning was required then the invoice was accepted. The cleaning by and large was to the expected standard however there was other areas that required cleaning, such as the oven.
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.

Is the tenant responsible for the Kitchen floor?

The landlord claims the cost of $120.00 to patch repair the flooring in the kitchen where a pot had chipped part of the flooring. It was a small area, and the tenant remembered it happening. Saying he dropped a large pot.
The landlord claims it was careless. That the floor was new at the commencement of the tenancy and the damage clearly caused because of carelessness.
The tenant says that the kitchen is an area of high usage and during a tenancy of four and a half years that it is fair wear and tear. He indicated it was an accident in that he dropped the pot.
Accidental damage is damage that occurs unexpectedly and unintentional without negligence or failure to take reasonable care.
There is no evidence that the tenant was not taking reasonable care, and the dropping of the pot was a one off accident. The only evidence in relation to how it occurred was that it slipped from the tenants’ hands, there is no evidence he was being careless in his actions.
On the balance of probabilities, I therefore find that the claim is not proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet in bedroom?

The landlord has sought a contribution for the replacement carpet in one of the bedrooms. The figure sought includes depreciation. The insurance excess was above the amount required and therefore was not able to be claimed.
The tenant claims it was a high use area and again fair wear and tear. However, the damage was due to a four-legged chair, used as an office chair.
I find that this damage is recoverable as the tenant repeatedly used the chair causing ongoing damage and took no steps to protect the carpet from the chair legs.
I accept that the damage is therefore proven as the tenant should have taken more care to protect the carpet with the use of the chair and clearly damage this chair caused over the period of the tenancy die to being careless.
On the balance of probabilities, I therefore accept that it is more than fair wear and tear and the claim as proven. Is the tenant responsible for the painting of rooms
The landlord claims for the cost to repaint walls that was required as the tenant had attempted to fix and paint themselves and it was mismatched. The tenant accepted the costs as sought. Is the tenant responsible for the kitchen bench top
The damage to the new bench top was a chip and deep scratch in the same area.
The tenant again submitted that it was fair wear and tear. However, he did not recall how it happened or when it happened so there is no evidence to show it was not careless damage, therefore I must find that it 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 Glasshouse Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Sarah Elisabeth Philp And [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Sarah Elisabeth Philp And [The landlord/s] $841.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (BN-16864290) immediately apportioned as follows: Glasshouse Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Sarah Elisabeth Philp And [The landlord/s]: $1,273.47 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,006.53

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants I am told were both represented by [The tenant/s].
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied to have their bond refunded.
This tenancy commenced on 14 September 2021 and the property was new at the commencement 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, and remove all rubbish, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant produced evidence of the costs they incurred to have the property cleaned. However, accepted that if further cleaning was required then the invoice was accepted. The cleaning by and large was to the expected standard however there was other areas that required cleaning, such as the oven.
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.

Is the tenant responsible for the Kitchen floor?

The landlord claims the cost of $120.00 to patch repair the flooring in the kitchen where a pot had chipped part of the flooring. It was a small area, and the tenant remembered it happening. Saying he dropped a large pot.
The landlord claims it was careless. That the floor was new at the commencement of the tenancy and the damage clearly caused because of carelessness.
The tenant says that the kitchen is an area of high usage and during a tenancy of four and a half years that it is fair wear and tear. He indicated it was an accident in that he dropped the pot.
Accidental damage is damage that occurs unexpectedly and unintentional without negligence or failure to take reasonable care.
There is no evidence that the tenant was not taking reasonable care, and the dropping of the pot was a one off accident. The only evidence in relation to how it occurred was that it slipped from the tenants’ hands, there is no evidence he was being careless in his actions.
On the balance of probabilities, I therefore find that the claim is not proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet in bedroom?

The landlord has sought a contribution for the replacement carpet in one of the bedrooms. The figure sought includes depreciation. The insurance excess was above the amount required and therefore was not able to be claimed.
The tenant claims it was a high use area and again fair wear and tear. However, the damage was due to a four-legged chair, used as an office chair.
I find that this damage is recoverable as the tenant repeatedly used the chair causing ongoing damage and took no steps to protect the carpet from the chair legs.
I accept that the damage is therefore proven as the tenant should have taken more care to protect the carpet with the use of the chair and clearly damage this chair caused over the period of the tenancy die to being careless.
On the balance of probabilities, I therefore accept that it is more than fair wear and tear and the claim as proven. Is the tenant responsible for the painting of rooms
The landlord claims for the cost to repaint walls that was required as the tenant had attempted to fix and paint themselves and it was mismatched. The tenant accepted the costs as sought. Is the tenant responsible for the kitchen bench top
The damage to the new bench top was a chip and deep scratch in the same area.
The tenant again submitted that it was fair wear and tear. However, he did not recall how it happened or when it happened so there is no evidence to show it was not careless damage, therefore I must find that it 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 Glasshouse Property Management Limited Acting As Agent For Sarah Elisabeth Philp And [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5480831 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 1 Splitt Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

Tenancy Tribunal case 5480831 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 1 Splitt Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the Kitchen floor?

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet in bedroom?

Property management

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the Kitchen floor?

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet in bedroom?

Property management