What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4543109?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4543109?

Cleaning: $169.63 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Items: $88.49 awarded to landlord; Previous District Court Order (CIV 2…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Tribunal Order (4477325: $4,199.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4543109?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4543109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9271656-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4543109?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4543109?

Cleaning: $169.63 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Items: $88.49 awarded to landlord; Previous District Court Order (CIV 2…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Tribunal Order (4477325: $4,199.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4543109?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4543109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9271656-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Stephen Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4543109 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4543109 — net $1,779.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$169.63		Oven/stove cleaning
Carpet repair cost	$172.50		Carpet repair cost
Missing items	$88.49		Missing items
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Previous Tribunal Order (4477325	$4,199.01		Previous Tribunal Order (4477325
Previous District Court Order (CIV 2022 085		$500.00	Previous District Court Order (CIV 2022 085
Total award	$4,879.63	$500.00
Net award	$1,779.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,779.63

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Tawhiao McMaster must pay Ace Body Corporate & Property Management Limited As Agent For Chance Pistoll $1,779.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3081843-008) to Ace Body Corporate & Property Management Limited As Agent For Chance Pistoll immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.
The tenancy has ended, the landlord now applies for compensation for damage and other costs. I also note that there has been a previous order from the District Court that the landlord pay $500.00 to the tenant. This order is combined into my order today.
I also combine a second order from the Tribunal that the tenant pay the landlord $4,199.01 for rent arrears. Application for cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises.
It is also relevant to note, that the onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord has claimed costs for oven cleaning. Based on photographs provided, I am satisfied that the oven was very clean at the start of the tenancy, and not reasonably cleaned when the tenancy was returned to the landlord. This claim has been established.
The landlord has claimed for five hours of gardening and lawn costs at the end of the tenancy. The tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which means that the grounds must be reasonably tidy, meaning lawns mowed, and the garden beds in a reasonable state. I am satisfied the tenant did not return the premises in that required condition, the landlords claim is reasonable, and ordered in full Application for compensation
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 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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord has claimed costs for a carpet repair. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The photographs show damage, almost certainly burn marks in front of the fireplace. It is very likely that hot material has fallen out of the fireplace, landing on the carpet causing the burns. I am satisfied that this damage would not be fair wear and tear, it is most likely representing careless or intentional damage. This claim is established and ordered in full.
The landlord has claimed legal costs, in relation to the matter which went before the District Court. As I explained to the landlord at the hearing, normally costs are sought in the forum of the hearing. That means, that if the landlord was seeking costs in relation to the District Court case, then that needed to be an application made to the District Court judge. I cannot go behind that an order those costs here.
The landlord has claimed compensation for a missing chopping block, and oil heater, that were provided at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has given photographs showing those items present. I have no reason to doubt that they were missing at the end of the tenancy. When a tenancy ends, the onus is on the tenant to return all chattels provided with the premises, and if they fail to do so, they are liable for the replacement cost. This claim is established and is awarded in full.
Finally the landlord has claimed compensation for damage to flashing around the chimney. The landlord has provided a photograph showing a hole in what appears to be the lead flashing. The landlord believes that the tenant would have put the hole in the flashing maliciously. With any claim for damage, the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it was not fair wear and tear. In this case, I must conclude that there is simply insufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy other than fair wearing tear. It is possible the hole was put into the flashing by the tenant, but it could be no more than a possibility. There is simply insufficient evidence to establish this claim, meaning it must be dismissed. Filing fee
The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4543109 — net $1,779.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$169.63		Oven/stove cleaning
Carpet repair cost	$172.50		Carpet repair cost
Missing items	$88.49		Missing items
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work
Previous Tribunal Order (4477325	$4,199.01		Previous Tribunal Order (4477325
Previous District Court Order (CIV 2022 085		$500.00	Previous District Court Order (CIV 2022 085
Total award	$4,879.63	$500.00
Net award	$1,779.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,779.63

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Tawhiao McMaster must pay Ace Body Corporate & Property Management Limited As Agent For Chance Pistoll $1,779.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3081843-008) to Ace Body Corporate & Property Management Limited As Agent For Chance Pistoll immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.
The tenancy has ended, the landlord now applies for compensation for damage and other costs. I also note that there has been a previous order from the District Court that the landlord pay $500.00 to the tenant. This order is combined into my order today.
I also combine a second order from the Tribunal that the tenant pay the landlord $4,199.01 for rent arrears. Application for cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises.
It is also relevant to note, that the onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord has claimed costs for oven cleaning. Based on photographs provided, I am satisfied that the oven was very clean at the start of the tenancy, and not reasonably cleaned when the tenancy was returned to the landlord. This claim has been established.
The landlord has claimed for five hours of gardening and lawn costs at the end of the tenancy. The tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which means that the grounds must be reasonably tidy, meaning lawns mowed, and the garden beds in a reasonable state. I am satisfied the tenant did not return the premises in that required condition, the landlords claim is reasonable, and ordered in full Application for compensation
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 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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord has claimed costs for a carpet repair. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The photographs show damage, almost certainly burn marks in front of the fireplace. It is very likely that hot material has fallen out of the fireplace, landing on the carpet causing the burns. I am satisfied that this damage would not be fair wear and tear, it is most likely representing careless or intentional damage. This claim is established and ordered in full.
The landlord has claimed legal costs, in relation to the matter which went before the District Court. As I explained to the landlord at the hearing, normally costs are sought in the forum of the hearing. That means, that if the landlord was seeking costs in relation to the District Court case, then that needed to be an application made to the District Court judge. I cannot go behind that an order those costs here.
The landlord has claimed compensation for a missing chopping block, and oil heater, that were provided at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has given photographs showing those items present. I have no reason to doubt that they were missing at the end of the tenancy. When a tenancy ends, the onus is on the tenant to return all chattels provided with the premises, and if they fail to do so, they are liable for the replacement cost. This claim is established and is awarded in full.
Finally the landlord has claimed compensation for damage to flashing around the chimney. The landlord has provided a photograph showing a hole in what appears to be the lead flashing. The landlord believes that the tenant would have put the hole in the flashing maliciously. With any claim for damage, the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it was not fair wear and tear. In this case, I must conclude that there is simply insufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy other than fair wearing tear. It is possible the hole was put into the flashing by the tenant, but it could be no more than a possibility. There is simply insufficient evidence to establish this claim, meaning it must be dismissed. Filing fee
The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4543109 — Property damage at 20 Stephen Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4543109 — Property damage at 20 Stephen Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions