What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4485260?

The tribunal order states: Ryan John Richmond must pay Andrew Mccullouch $909.27 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4485260?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $369.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $393.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4485260?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4485260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9676852-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4485260?

The tribunal order states: Ryan John Richmond must pay Andrew Mccullouch $909.27 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4485260?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $369.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $393.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4485260?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4485260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9676852-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

441 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach, Snells Beach Tenancy Tribunal Case 4485260 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4485260 — net $909.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$25.90	Water rates
Cleaning	$369.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: extra Stain removal	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning: extra Stain removal
Window repairs	$393.93	Window repairs
insurance excess on bathroom claim	$550.00	insurance excess on bathroom claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$909.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$909.27

Order

Ryan John Richmond must pay Andrew Mccullouch $909.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (5797252-003) to Andrew Mccullouch immediately.
Within 10 days of the date of this Order the landlord must provide to the tenants a copy of the Watercare invoices throughout the tenancy and credit against the sum payable by the tenant under this Order any fixed charges paid by the tenant.
There is no apparent basis in the evidence for parties’ identifying details to be supressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Their respective partners also attended.
The initial application was filed by the tenant seeking payment of his bond. Additional claims were made relating to the security of the premises and the unsuitability of one of the downstairs rooms for use as a bedroom.
The landlord then filed a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

Following notice to vacate given by the tenant, the tenancy was to end on 12 December 2022.
The tenant and his family moved into their new home on 10 December 2022. The family were all unwell with covid and it took them longer to complete cleaning of the premises than they had intended. They completed that work and returned the keys to the landlord on 15 December 2022.
When the tenant advised the landlord that the cleaning would not be finished by the tenancy end date, the landlord confirmed that would be OK on the basis that the tenant paid $85.00 per day until then.
The landlord claims $255.00 being $85.00 per day for the 3 days from 12 December when the tenancy ended to 15 December when the keys were returned.
Section 60(1) RTA provides that, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.”
I find that for that 3 day period, the tenant and his family were not occupying the premises. They had moved to a new home and were living there. Section 60(1) does not apply.
The tenant was however in breach of his obligation to return the keys at the end of the tenancy (see s.40(1)(e)(iv)). Consequently, the landlord is entitled to be compensated for any loss caused by that breach. The landlord confirms that no such loss was caused.
The landlord has provided the final water rates invoice which remains unpaid. I am satisfied that the tenant owes $25.90 for the water used at the premises for that period.
It became apparent that the landlord was asking the tenant to pay the whole of the water rates invoice and had done so throughout the tenancy, as provided for in the agreement. Section 39(4)(c) makes it clear that a tenant is only liable for consumption charges (ie. not fixed charges). Tenants cannot be held to agreements that impose a higher obligation on them (s.11(1)).
The landlord will accordingly need to account to the tenant for the excess amounts paid.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord from the final inspection on 15 December 2022 satisfy me on balance that in some respects the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The carpets were badly marked. The tenant had brought a dog into the premises – for good and understandable reasons but without the landlord’s consent, and in any event is responsible for any additional cleaning required by the dog’s presence.
The carpet cleaning invoice records that that a second visit was required for additional stain removal. I find that compensation is due to the landlord in the amount of the 2 carpet cleaning invoices paid.
The photographs also show some other areas around windows, cabinets and electrical fixtures that required additional cleaning.
The landlord had a full commercial clean including washing all interior and exterior windows and flea treatment undertaken.
The tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not to undertake a deep clean ready for the premises to be moved into by the new occupants. The compensation payable to the landlord is limited to my assessment of the cost necessary to have the premises brought to reasonably clean condition which I assess at 6 hours x $50 per hour plus the costs of the flea treatments

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 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 insurance with an excess of $550.00. There is no suggestion that any intentional damage was caused.
On final inspection the landlord discovered a broken window in the garage.
The tenant says he was unaware of the break and did not cause it. Having heard from the parties I find it more likely than not that the window was broken during the tenancy. That means there is an onus on the tenant to provide evidence to show it was not caused carelessly by the occupants. The evidence does not meet that onus and I find the tenant responsible to compensate the landlord for the repair cost which is approved in terms of the invoice paid by the landlord – less the cost of replacing a friction stay which is likely to be a wear and tear matter.
Significant damage was caused to flooring in the premises as a result of what seems to have been overflows from the shower.
The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted. He seeks reimbursement of the excess.
An assessment was undertaken for the insurer by Aqua Works which it is helpful to set out in full:’ “I inspected the upper level bathroom at 441 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach on Friday the 27th of January at approximately 1:00 p.m. The bathroom is of a wet floor design with adequate fall and coving up the walls. Water damage has occurred by the entry door where the bathroom has flooded and the water level has risen to the extent that it flowed out the bathroom door and into the adjacent hall and toilet cubicle. I tested the shower under normal operating conditions and the water drained away freely. I inspected all drains and traps from the shower out to the external gully trap and found no blockages or impediments I looked for leakages and found no evidence of faulty or leaking pipes. There is no reason why the water would have made it outside the door under normal showering conditions as I could find no plumbing related issues that would contribute to or cause flooding damage. I believe the most likely caused the damages because the drain has been blocked by having something placed over the drain outlet inside the shower restricting the normal flow of the water”.
The tenant says that the shower design was inadequate and that he said so to the landlord, proposing that a shower tray be installed to prevent the risk of flooding. There is no clear evidence of that exchange.
In any event, I must consider the best available evidence in assessing the claim. The best available evidence is in the form of the report from Aqua Work which finds the shower to be fit for purpose.
There is no basis at all in the evidence for the tenant’s suggestion that the certified plumber’s professional opinion cannot be relied on, because the owner of the business is known to the landlord.
I find it proved to be more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant’s evidence does not prove it was not carelessly caused.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the excess paid. Fourth bedroom
The tenant says that he should be compensated because one of the downstairs rooms could not be used as a bedroom when the premises were supposed to be a 4 bedroom home. He says that is because there was moisture coming through the block wall causing damp and mould.
Photographs were shown showing paint flaked from the inside of that wall and the landlord acknowledges that the paint was peeling, and that wall has been repainted. The landlord says however that the space in question was never intended as a bedroom and has only been used for storage.
A Healthy Homes assessment was undertaken in February 2023 which assesses the premises as compliant with the moisture ingress standard under the Healthy Homes Regulations. The landlord’s evidence is that no renovation work relevant to that standard has been undertaken since the end of the tenancy. The tenant invites me to infer otherwise but there needs to be some evidential foundation for suggesting a party is giving false evidence.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached his obligations in terms of the maintenance/ repair standards of the downstairs area such as to warrant an abatement of the rent.
Finally, I record the tenant’s concern that the landlord did not change the locks to the premises before the tenancy began, though he knew there had been worrisome tenants living there previously. The landlord did change the locks after the tenant’s family suffered an intrusion.
While it may have been prudent and considerate for the locks to have been changed between tenancies, the RTA does not oblige a landlord to do so. The requirement is, under s.46 to, “...provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.”
The evidence does not persuade me that the landlord breached that obligation.
Because the landlord has succeeded with claims brought, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4485260 — net $909.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$25.90	Water rates
Cleaning	$369.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: extra Stain removal	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning: extra Stain removal
Window repairs	$393.93	Window repairs
insurance excess on bathroom claim	$550.00	insurance excess on bathroom claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$909.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$909.27

Order

Ryan John Richmond must pay Andrew Mccullouch $909.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (5797252-003) to Andrew Mccullouch immediately.
Within 10 days of the date of this Order the landlord must provide to the tenants a copy of the Watercare invoices throughout the tenancy and credit against the sum payable by the tenant under this Order any fixed charges paid by the tenant.
There is no apparent basis in the evidence for parties’ identifying details to be supressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Their respective partners also attended.
The initial application was filed by the tenant seeking payment of his bond. Additional claims were made relating to the security of the premises and the unsuitability of one of the downstairs rooms for use as a bedroom.
The landlord then filed a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

Following notice to vacate given by the tenant, the tenancy was to end on 12 December 2022.
The tenant and his family moved into their new home on 10 December 2022. The family were all unwell with covid and it took them longer to complete cleaning of the premises than they had intended. They completed that work and returned the keys to the landlord on 15 December 2022.
When the tenant advised the landlord that the cleaning would not be finished by the tenancy end date, the landlord confirmed that would be OK on the basis that the tenant paid $85.00 per day until then.
The landlord claims $255.00 being $85.00 per day for the 3 days from 12 December when the tenancy ended to 15 December when the keys were returned.
Section 60(1) RTA provides that, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.”
I find that for that 3 day period, the tenant and his family were not occupying the premises. They had moved to a new home and were living there. Section 60(1) does not apply.
The tenant was however in breach of his obligation to return the keys at the end of the tenancy (see s.40(1)(e)(iv)). Consequently, the landlord is entitled to be compensated for any loss caused by that breach. The landlord confirms that no such loss was caused.
The landlord has provided the final water rates invoice which remains unpaid. I am satisfied that the tenant owes $25.90 for the water used at the premises for that period.
It became apparent that the landlord was asking the tenant to pay the whole of the water rates invoice and had done so throughout the tenancy, as provided for in the agreement. Section 39(4)(c) makes it clear that a tenant is only liable for consumption charges (ie. not fixed charges). Tenants cannot be held to agreements that impose a higher obligation on them (s.11(1)).
The landlord will accordingly need to account to the tenant for the excess amounts paid.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord from the final inspection on 15 December 2022 satisfy me on balance that in some respects the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The carpets were badly marked. The tenant had brought a dog into the premises – for good and understandable reasons but without the landlord’s consent, and in any event is responsible for any additional cleaning required by the dog’s presence.
The carpet cleaning invoice records that that a second visit was required for additional stain removal. I find that compensation is due to the landlord in the amount of the 2 carpet cleaning invoices paid.
The photographs also show some other areas around windows, cabinets and electrical fixtures that required additional cleaning.
The landlord had a full commercial clean including washing all interior and exterior windows and flea treatment undertaken.
The tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not to undertake a deep clean ready for the premises to be moved into by the new occupants. The compensation payable to the landlord is limited to my assessment of the cost necessary to have the premises brought to reasonably clean condition which I assess at 6 hours x $50 per hour plus the costs of the flea treatments

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 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 insurance with an excess of $550.00. There is no suggestion that any intentional damage was caused.
On final inspection the landlord discovered a broken window in the garage.
The tenant says he was unaware of the break and did not cause it. Having heard from the parties I find it more likely than not that the window was broken during the tenancy. That means there is an onus on the tenant to provide evidence to show it was not caused carelessly by the occupants. The evidence does not meet that onus and I find the tenant responsible to compensate the landlord for the repair cost which is approved in terms of the invoice paid by the landlord – less the cost of replacing a friction stay which is likely to be a wear and tear matter.
Significant damage was caused to flooring in the premises as a result of what seems to have been overflows from the shower.
The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted. He seeks reimbursement of the excess.
An assessment was undertaken for the insurer by Aqua Works which it is helpful to set out in full:’ “I inspected the upper level bathroom at 441 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach on Friday the 27th of January at approximately 1:00 p.m. The bathroom is of a wet floor design with adequate fall and coving up the walls. Water damage has occurred by the entry door where the bathroom has flooded and the water level has risen to the extent that it flowed out the bathroom door and into the adjacent hall and toilet cubicle. I tested the shower under normal operating conditions and the water drained away freely. I inspected all drains and traps from the shower out to the external gully trap and found no blockages or impediments I looked for leakages and found no evidence of faulty or leaking pipes. There is no reason why the water would have made it outside the door under normal showering conditions as I could find no plumbing related issues that would contribute to or cause flooding damage. I believe the most likely caused the damages because the drain has been blocked by having something placed over the drain outlet inside the shower restricting the normal flow of the water”.
The tenant says that the shower design was inadequate and that he said so to the landlord, proposing that a shower tray be installed to prevent the risk of flooding. There is no clear evidence of that exchange.
In any event, I must consider the best available evidence in assessing the claim. The best available evidence is in the form of the report from Aqua Work which finds the shower to be fit for purpose.
There is no basis at all in the evidence for the tenant’s suggestion that the certified plumber’s professional opinion cannot be relied on, because the owner of the business is known to the landlord.
I find it proved to be more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant’s evidence does not prove it was not carelessly caused.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the excess paid. Fourth bedroom
The tenant says that he should be compensated because one of the downstairs rooms could not be used as a bedroom when the premises were supposed to be a 4 bedroom home. He says that is because there was moisture coming through the block wall causing damp and mould.
Photographs were shown showing paint flaked from the inside of that wall and the landlord acknowledges that the paint was peeling, and that wall has been repainted. The landlord says however that the space in question was never intended as a bedroom and has only been used for storage.
A Healthy Homes assessment was undertaken in February 2023 which assesses the premises as compliant with the moisture ingress standard under the Healthy Homes Regulations. The landlord’s evidence is that no renovation work relevant to that standard has been undertaken since the end of the tenancy. The tenant invites me to infer otherwise but there needs to be some evidential foundation for suggesting a party is giving false evidence.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached his obligations in terms of the maintenance/ repair standards of the downstairs area such as to warrant an abatement of the rent.
Finally, I record the tenant’s concern that the landlord did not change the locks to the premises before the tenancy began, though he knew there had been worrisome tenants living there previously. The landlord did change the locks after the tenant’s family suffered an intrusion.
While it may have been prudent and considerate for the locks to have been changed between tenancies, the RTA does not oblige a landlord to do so. The requirement is, under s.46 to, “...provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.”
The evidence does not persuade me that the landlord breached that obligation.
Because the landlord has succeeded with claims brought, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4485260 — Cleanliness at 441 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach, Snells Beach

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4485260 — Cleanliness at 441 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach, Snells Beach

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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