What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484187 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is required to pay $97.50 to Accurate Infrastructure

How much money was awarded in case 5484187?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rehanging: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484187?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484187?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14151482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484187 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is required to pay $97.50 to Accurate Infrastructure

How much money was awarded in case 5484187?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rehanging: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484187?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484187?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14151482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Cameron Street, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484187 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484187. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$57.50		Carpet Cleaning
Curtain rehanging	$40.00		Curtain rehanging

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is required to pay $97.50 to Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited, as calculated in the table below, which is to be paid from the funds held by Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited on behalf of the tenant.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not connect to the remote hearing. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended in April 2024. The claims
The claims are: a. Rubbish removal $47.24 (CPM invoice 17172 total $757.46) b. Carpet cleaning $57.50 (Saint clean invoice total $460) c. Cleaning - $171.06 (Emerald cleaning invoice total $1,368.50) d. Wall repairs, curtain repairs, rubbish removal $64.27 (CPM invoice 17360 total $1,028.46)
The amounts claimed reflect a contribution to the total invoices, as the landlord has accepted liability for part of the invoices i.e. for the net curtain damage and replacement, and the landlord has separated the claims between other tenants as this was a room-by-room tenancy.
In addition, the landlord said the tenant has paid $100 to the claims and this should be deducted from any amount ordered. 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. The Law: 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 and remove all rubbish. 1 1 RTA, 40(1)(e). The Law: Damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2
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. 3
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. 4
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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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 or caused by a pet being kept on the premises. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 8 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. 9
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. Cleaning and rubbish removal 2 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 3 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 6 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 7 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 8 RTA s 49B(1). 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I accept that the carpet required cleaning as the photographs at the end of the tenancy show dark marks in the carpet in the main living area. The amount ordered for carpet cleaning is $57.50 and is proved with photographs, an invoice and oral evidence.
The landlord relies on a written statement by the property manager from April 2024 as proof that cleaning was required. I am not satisfied the landlord has proven that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is a lack of photographs to prove this claim, and it is dismissed.
I am also not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant did not remove all his rubbish. I cannot determine from the photographs what us rubbish or belongings that were to remain that were provided with the tenancy. There is a lack of post-tenancy photographs to support this claim, and I am therefore unclear if the amount claimed is reasonable. I am unclear why any rubbish could not have been placed out for the Council to collect, because there are no photographs of the rubbish. Accordingly, I dismiss the claim for rubbish removal. Curtain replacement and rehanging
The landlord also says the tenant should be liable for an invoice that relates to repairing and rehanging curtains throughout the home as required, wall repairs and removing items from the home.
I have addressed the rubbish removal and disposal of items above.
I note that the curtains do not appear to be damaged in the photographs provided, however I accept that some of the curtains needed to be rehung. I will award $40 in respect of the curtain rehanging, which I have assessed as being 1/8 of part of the labour costs, tracks and track ends as set out in the CPM invoice 17360. Wall damage
The landlord has not provided photographs of the wall damage; therefore, this aspect of the claim is dismissed. Patio bolt
The landlord did not suggest that tenant is liable for the patio bolt, which is included as part of the CPM invoice 17172.
The balance of the claims in respect of the CPM invoices 17172 and invoice 17360 are dismissed as unproven. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has been partly successful in their claim; however they have received funds from the tenant to off-set the amounts ordered. I do not consider it appropriate to award the filing fee in the circumstances. 10
On my enquiry, the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484187. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$57.50		Carpet Cleaning
Curtain rehanging	$40.00		Curtain rehanging

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is required to pay $97.50 to Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited, as calculated in the table below, which is to be paid from the funds held by Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited on behalf of the tenant.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not connect to the remote hearing. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended in April 2024. The claims
The claims are: a. Rubbish removal $47.24 (CPM invoice 17172 total $757.46) b. Carpet cleaning $57.50 (Saint clean invoice total $460) c. Cleaning - $171.06 (Emerald cleaning invoice total $1,368.50) d. Wall repairs, curtain repairs, rubbish removal $64.27 (CPM invoice 17360 total $1,028.46)
The amounts claimed reflect a contribution to the total invoices, as the landlord has accepted liability for part of the invoices i.e. for the net curtain damage and replacement, and the landlord has separated the claims between other tenants as this was a room-by-room tenancy.
In addition, the landlord said the tenant has paid $100 to the claims and this should be deducted from any amount ordered. 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. The Law: 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 and remove all rubbish. 1 1 RTA, 40(1)(e). The Law: Damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2
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. 3
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. 4
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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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 or caused by a pet being kept on the premises. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 8 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. 9
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. Cleaning and rubbish removal 2 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 3 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 6 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 7 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 8 RTA s 49B(1). 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I accept that the carpet required cleaning as the photographs at the end of the tenancy show dark marks in the carpet in the main living area. The amount ordered for carpet cleaning is $57.50 and is proved with photographs, an invoice and oral evidence.
The landlord relies on a written statement by the property manager from April 2024 as proof that cleaning was required. I am not satisfied the landlord has proven that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is a lack of photographs to prove this claim, and it is dismissed.
I am also not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant did not remove all his rubbish. I cannot determine from the photographs what us rubbish or belongings that were to remain that were provided with the tenancy. There is a lack of post-tenancy photographs to support this claim, and I am therefore unclear if the amount claimed is reasonable. I am unclear why any rubbish could not have been placed out for the Council to collect, because there are no photographs of the rubbish. Accordingly, I dismiss the claim for rubbish removal. Curtain replacement and rehanging
The landlord also says the tenant should be liable for an invoice that relates to repairing and rehanging curtains throughout the home as required, wall repairs and removing items from the home.
I have addressed the rubbish removal and disposal of items above.
I note that the curtains do not appear to be damaged in the photographs provided, however I accept that some of the curtains needed to be rehung. I will award $40 in respect of the curtain rehanging, which I have assessed as being 1/8 of part of the labour costs, tracks and track ends as set out in the CPM invoice 17360. Wall damage
The landlord has not provided photographs of the wall damage; therefore, this aspect of the claim is dismissed. Patio bolt
The landlord did not suggest that tenant is liable for the patio bolt, which is included as part of the CPM invoice 17172.
The balance of the claims in respect of the CPM invoices 17172 and invoice 17360 are dismissed as unproven. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has been partly successful in their claim; however they have received funds from the tenant to off-set the amounts ordered. I do not consider it appropriate to award the filing fee in the circumstances. 10
On my enquiry, the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484187 — Cleanliness at 21 Cameron Street, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484187 — Cleanliness at 21 Cameron Street, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.