What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4550009?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4550009?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550009?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4550009?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4550009?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550009?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 213, 47 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4550009 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550009 — net $123.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Apartment Clean	$143.75		Cleaning: Apartment Clean
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$143.75	$20.44
Net award	$123.31
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$123.31

Order

Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vulcan Properties $123.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim in respect of cleaning is allowed. The remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6377435-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vulcan Properties: $123.31 Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung: $2,876.69

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This matter consists of a tenant application, 4550009, and a landlord cross- application, 4576790.
The tenant has filed an application seeking return of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord filed a cross application seeking compensation for cleaning and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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, 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants responded by stating that they cleaned the apartment at the end of their tenancy. Both parties filed photographic evidence in support of their claims.
Having carefully considered the photographic evidence provided I am satisfied that there were areas of the apartment which required cleaning. The cleaning charge is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
The cleaning amount ordered is 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.
The landlord makes a number of claims in respect of minor damage. The fact that these two tenants resided there for two years during COVID restrictions must also be taken into account.
The landlord says that the tenants damaged a white bed side table which was only two years old. The landlord produced a quote for replacement of this item of furniture from the owner’s furniture supply company.
The tenants say that they never used the table and was stored in the storage area underneath the stairs. The tenants do not accept the claim.
I have considered the photographic evidence provided in support of this claim. Regardless of where the side table was kept it is my view that the small mark on the tabletop is fair wear and tear.
The landlord says that the tenants have placed something on the kitchen bench top which has caused damage. The landlord had to have the benchtop professionally cleaned which managed to remove most of the marks.
The tenants say that they took photographs of the apartment when they moved out on 30 March 2023. They say that there was no damage caused to the benchtop. Their photos confirm this. The tenants strenuously deny this claim.
I note that the landlord’s exit photographs were taken on 31 March 2023 however the photographs relating to the kitchen bench were not taken until 6 April 2023. The assessment of the alleged damage was not undertaken until 24 May 2023. I also note that the assessor stated that the exact cause of the marks cannot be determined. The landlord has provided an expense claim relating to this which has been paid. The expense claim also includes a callout fee of $143.75.
Given the conflicting evidence which I have been presented with the landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage. I cannot be certain when this alleged damage took place. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenants damaged two mattress protectors. She says that they provided two mattress protectors on both beds which were stained at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the cost of replacing the two mattress protectors. The landlord also claims for the cleaning of both bed mattresses due to staining. The landlord provided expense claims for replacing the mattress protectors and cleaning the mattresses.
The tenants accept that there was staining but say this is also fair wear and tear.
I agree with the tenants. Mattress protectors are provided for a reason and to expect these to continue in an ‘as new’ condition after two years is unreasonable. It is also my view that minor marks on a bed mattress after two years is also not unreasonable in a rental environment.
I dismiss the claims relating to the mattress protectors and the mattresses.
The landlord says that the tenants left candle/wax like marks on the balcony which had to be professionally cleaned. Photos clearly show the marks. The tenants accept the marks left on the deck however they maintain that these were also fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the marks on the balcony however did not file evidence of work done to remove the stains or a receipt for payment. There is no evidence of who attended to this or an invoice confirming the amount paid to clean the marks off the balcony. This claim is also dismissed.
As noted the tenants claim that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: section 49A(2). Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but I am not satisfied that it is met and I dismiss the claims.
Because Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung have substantially succeeded with their application I must reimburse their filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has only been partly successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550009 — net $123.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Apartment Clean	$143.75		Cleaning: Apartment Clean
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$143.75	$20.44
Net award	$123.31
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$123.31

Order

Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vulcan Properties $123.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim in respect of cleaning is allowed. The remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6377435-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vulcan Properties: $123.31 Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung: $2,876.69

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This matter consists of a tenant application, 4550009, and a landlord cross- application, 4576790.
The tenant has filed an application seeking return of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord filed a cross application seeking compensation for cleaning and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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, 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants responded by stating that they cleaned the apartment at the end of their tenancy. Both parties filed photographic evidence in support of their claims.
Having carefully considered the photographic evidence provided I am satisfied that there were areas of the apartment which required cleaning. The cleaning charge is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
The cleaning amount ordered is 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.
The landlord makes a number of claims in respect of minor damage. The fact that these two tenants resided there for two years during COVID restrictions must also be taken into account.
The landlord says that the tenants damaged a white bed side table which was only two years old. The landlord produced a quote for replacement of this item of furniture from the owner’s furniture supply company.
The tenants say that they never used the table and was stored in the storage area underneath the stairs. The tenants do not accept the claim.
I have considered the photographic evidence provided in support of this claim. Regardless of where the side table was kept it is my view that the small mark on the tabletop is fair wear and tear.
The landlord says that the tenants have placed something on the kitchen bench top which has caused damage. The landlord had to have the benchtop professionally cleaned which managed to remove most of the marks.
The tenants say that they took photographs of the apartment when they moved out on 30 March 2023. They say that there was no damage caused to the benchtop. Their photos confirm this. The tenants strenuously deny this claim.
I note that the landlord’s exit photographs were taken on 31 March 2023 however the photographs relating to the kitchen bench were not taken until 6 April 2023. The assessment of the alleged damage was not undertaken until 24 May 2023. I also note that the assessor stated that the exact cause of the marks cannot be determined. The landlord has provided an expense claim relating to this which has been paid. The expense claim also includes a callout fee of $143.75.
Given the conflicting evidence which I have been presented with the landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage. I cannot be certain when this alleged damage took place. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenants damaged two mattress protectors. She says that they provided two mattress protectors on both beds which were stained at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the cost of replacing the two mattress protectors. The landlord also claims for the cleaning of both bed mattresses due to staining. The landlord provided expense claims for replacing the mattress protectors and cleaning the mattresses.
The tenants accept that there was staining but say this is also fair wear and tear.
I agree with the tenants. Mattress protectors are provided for a reason and to expect these to continue in an ‘as new’ condition after two years is unreasonable. It is also my view that minor marks on a bed mattress after two years is also not unreasonable in a rental environment.
I dismiss the claims relating to the mattress protectors and the mattresses.
The landlord says that the tenants left candle/wax like marks on the balcony which had to be professionally cleaned. Photos clearly show the marks. The tenants accept the marks left on the deck however they maintain that these were also fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the marks on the balcony however did not file evidence of work done to remove the stains or a receipt for payment. There is no evidence of who attended to this or an invoice confirming the amount paid to clean the marks off the balcony. This claim is also dismissed.
As noted the tenants claim that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: section 49A(2). Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but I am not satisfied that it is met and I dismiss the claims.
Because Natasha Tan and Tommy Tung have substantially succeeded with their application I must reimburse their filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has only been partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550009 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 213, 47 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550009 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 213, 47 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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