What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4490921?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4490921?

Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $79.26 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4490921?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4490921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9417899-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4490921?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4490921?

Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $79.26 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4490921?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4490921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9417899-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room Rear Flat, 36D May Street, Mount Maunganui, Bay of Tenancy Tribunal Case 4490921 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4490921. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (40 hours at /hour	$1,400.00	Cleaning (40 hours at /hour
Rug Doctor and Cleaning Solution	$79.26	Rug Doctor and Cleaning Solution
Door Handle Replacement	$185.00	Door Handle Replacement
Carpet Replacement (Excess	$1,100.00	Carpet Replacement (Excess
Replacement Vacuum Cleaner	$500.00	Replacement Vacuum Cleaner
Replacement Chair	$350.00	Replacement Chair
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $190.00 (6373315-010) to Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust immediately.
Bond Services is to release the Bond of $190 to Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust.
Sarah Tuffey is to pay Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust $3,444.70 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning (40 hours at $40/hour)$1,400.00 Rug Doctor and Cleaning Solution$79.26 Door Handle Replacement$185.00 Carpet Replacement (Excess)$1,100.00 Replacement Vacuum Cleaner$500.00 Replacement Chair$350.00 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$3,634.70 Minus Bond$190.00 Tenant to pay$3,444.70

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant has been served with copies of the Landlord’s application at her place of work. I am satisfied sufficient efforts have been made to bring notice of these proceedings to her attention. Despite these efforts, the Tenant did not attend the hearing and I proceeded to hear the matter without her.
The Landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the outset, the Landlord notes the Tenant had paid for the door stop, missing black lead, rug doctor (carpet clean), and a rug which the Landlord bought to cover a stain: $220.00

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence and photographs provided show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I have awarded the Landlord the hours they claim for cleaning the property, as set out in the Order above. I note that the Landlords, a husband-and-wife team, spent 40 hours between them restoring the premises. The work involved was substantial because the Tenant had not kept on top of the cleaning. The home was in immaculate condition at the start of the tenancy, like new. It has deteriorated rapidly in such a short space of time, and while the Tribunal does not allow cleaning for restoration of a property to an immaculate state, intensive cleaning was required to undo the compounding organic material from surfaces that had not been properly cleaned.
The carpet was badly stained, and the Landlord attempted to clean it with a Rug Doctor carpet cleaning machine. The carpets were practically new at the start of the tenancy. I have awarded the cost of the Rug Doctor to the Landlord.
The amounts claimed for these shortcomings are proved and justified based on the evidence provided.

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.
Damage caused during the tenancy, as presented by the landlord, includes a broken door handle, stained lounge area carpet, damaged door stop, and damaged chattels.
Missing or damaged chattels during the tenancy included: a. Vacuum cleaner: The landlord provided a brand-new Dyson vacuum cleaner at the beginning of the tenancy. It seems the tenant used it improperly, possibly to vacuum liquid. While it's commendable that the landlord wanted to furnish the property, doing so comes with inherent risks. Providing such expensive items was not the wisest decision. Considering the minimal bond of $190.00 that the Landlord asked the Tenant to pay, it seems the Landlord managed this tenancy with a certain lack of awareness regarding the typical risks associated with property rentals. The law expects landlords to limit their potential losses, and by placing expensive items in the property, I believe the landlord did not adequately do so. While the landlord's intentions might have been to offer a comfortable home, a more affordable vacuum would have sufficed. Relying on tenants to care for expensive items as the owner would is optimistic in today's times. Considering the vacuum's age, condition before the tenancy, the landlord's role in the incident, and evidence of mishandling, I award the landlord $500.00 for the vacuum's replacement. b. Damaged chair: The couch chair footrest mechanism was damaged. The couch was purchased bran new at the start of the tenancy for $2,888.00 as a five-piece set. For much the same reasons as were given in respect of the vacuum cleaner above, I consider the Tenant is liable to pay the amount of $350.00.
Carpet: The stains on the carpet, resembling vomit, red wine, and makeup, could not be removed with a Rug Doctor. Although these stains occurred during the tenancy and exceed normal wear and tear, I cannot determine that they were intentional. They suggest negligence but not a deliberate act to damage the carpet. The landlord said it has insurance, when asked. No policy was presented as mandated by Tenancy Services and the Landlord did not provide the particulars of any claim. On balance, I consider the Landlord could claim for the cost of the carpet replacement under the Landlord’s insurance. Though they may not want to, the law is clear about how much damage the Tribunal can award. Based on an assumed maximum excess of $550, I award this amount in respect of the two significant stain events I can discern from the Landlord’s photographs. In total, I award $1,100.
Door handle: The Tenant has accepted liability for the damaged door handle. The cost of sourcing a new handle and replacing the damaged one came to $185.00. I approve this amount.
The damage goes beyond mere wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage amounts ordered align with the evidence and photographs provided.
For determining the appropriate compensation, the concept of betterment and depreciation has been considered. The landlord's position, had the tenant adhered to their obligations, has been the focus. Depreciation took into account the age, initial condition, and probable lifespan of the items.
Given that Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust has wholly succeeded in their claim, the filing fee must be reimbursed. Addendum
The earlier Order sent to the parties was an incomplete draft order mistakenly submitted before it had been finalised. This Order overrides that earlier Order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4490921. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (40 hours at /hour	$1,400.00	Cleaning (40 hours at /hour
Rug Doctor and Cleaning Solution	$79.26	Rug Doctor and Cleaning Solution
Door Handle Replacement	$185.00	Door Handle Replacement
Carpet Replacement (Excess	$1,100.00	Carpet Replacement (Excess
Replacement Vacuum Cleaner	$500.00	Replacement Vacuum Cleaner
Replacement Chair	$350.00	Replacement Chair
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $190.00 (6373315-010) to Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust immediately.
Bond Services is to release the Bond of $190 to Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust.
Sarah Tuffey is to pay Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust $3,444.70 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning (40 hours at $40/hour)$1,400.00 Rug Doctor and Cleaning Solution$79.26 Door Handle Replacement$185.00 Carpet Replacement (Excess)$1,100.00 Replacement Vacuum Cleaner$500.00 Replacement Chair$350.00 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$3,634.70 Minus Bond$190.00 Tenant to pay$3,444.70

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant has been served with copies of the Landlord’s application at her place of work. I am satisfied sufficient efforts have been made to bring notice of these proceedings to her attention. Despite these efforts, the Tenant did not attend the hearing and I proceeded to hear the matter without her.
The Landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the outset, the Landlord notes the Tenant had paid for the door stop, missing black lead, rug doctor (carpet clean), and a rug which the Landlord bought to cover a stain: $220.00

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence and photographs provided show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I have awarded the Landlord the hours they claim for cleaning the property, as set out in the Order above. I note that the Landlords, a husband-and-wife team, spent 40 hours between them restoring the premises. The work involved was substantial because the Tenant had not kept on top of the cleaning. The home was in immaculate condition at the start of the tenancy, like new. It has deteriorated rapidly in such a short space of time, and while the Tribunal does not allow cleaning for restoration of a property to an immaculate state, intensive cleaning was required to undo the compounding organic material from surfaces that had not been properly cleaned.
The carpet was badly stained, and the Landlord attempted to clean it with a Rug Doctor carpet cleaning machine. The carpets were practically new at the start of the tenancy. I have awarded the cost of the Rug Doctor to the Landlord.
The amounts claimed for these shortcomings are proved and justified based on the evidence provided.

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.
Damage caused during the tenancy, as presented by the landlord, includes a broken door handle, stained lounge area carpet, damaged door stop, and damaged chattels.
Missing or damaged chattels during the tenancy included: a. Vacuum cleaner: The landlord provided a brand-new Dyson vacuum cleaner at the beginning of the tenancy. It seems the tenant used it improperly, possibly to vacuum liquid. While it's commendable that the landlord wanted to furnish the property, doing so comes with inherent risks. Providing such expensive items was not the wisest decision. Considering the minimal bond of $190.00 that the Landlord asked the Tenant to pay, it seems the Landlord managed this tenancy with a certain lack of awareness regarding the typical risks associated with property rentals. The law expects landlords to limit their potential losses, and by placing expensive items in the property, I believe the landlord did not adequately do so. While the landlord's intentions might have been to offer a comfortable home, a more affordable vacuum would have sufficed. Relying on tenants to care for expensive items as the owner would is optimistic in today's times. Considering the vacuum's age, condition before the tenancy, the landlord's role in the incident, and evidence of mishandling, I award the landlord $500.00 for the vacuum's replacement. b. Damaged chair: The couch chair footrest mechanism was damaged. The couch was purchased bran new at the start of the tenancy for $2,888.00 as a five-piece set. For much the same reasons as were given in respect of the vacuum cleaner above, I consider the Tenant is liable to pay the amount of $350.00.
Carpet: The stains on the carpet, resembling vomit, red wine, and makeup, could not be removed with a Rug Doctor. Although these stains occurred during the tenancy and exceed normal wear and tear, I cannot determine that they were intentional. They suggest negligence but not a deliberate act to damage the carpet. The landlord said it has insurance, when asked. No policy was presented as mandated by Tenancy Services and the Landlord did not provide the particulars of any claim. On balance, I consider the Landlord could claim for the cost of the carpet replacement under the Landlord’s insurance. Though they may not want to, the law is clear about how much damage the Tribunal can award. Based on an assumed maximum excess of $550, I award this amount in respect of the two significant stain events I can discern from the Landlord’s photographs. In total, I award $1,100.
Door handle: The Tenant has accepted liability for the damaged door handle. The cost of sourcing a new handle and replacing the damaged one came to $185.00. I approve this amount.
The damage goes beyond mere wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage amounts ordered align with the evidence and photographs provided.
For determining the appropriate compensation, the concept of betterment and depreciation has been considered. The landlord's position, had the tenant adhered to their obligations, has been the focus. Depreciation took into account the age, initial condition, and probable lifespan of the items.
Given that Isabel Goodall And Graeme Goodall As Trustees For The Graeme And Isabel Goodall Family Trust has wholly succeeded in their claim, the filing fee must be reimbursed. Addendum
The earlier Order sent to the parties was an incomplete draft order mistakenly submitted before it had been finalised. This Order overrides that earlier Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4490921 — Cleanliness at Room Rear Flat, 36D May Street, Mount Maunganui, Bay of

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4490921 — Cleanliness at Room Rear Flat, 36D May Street, Mount Maunganui, Bay of

At a glance

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

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