What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4593209?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4593209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4593209?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4593209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9384012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4593209?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4593209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4593209?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4593209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9384012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Duppa Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4593209 — Mould & damp

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
BY CONSENT – Get Smart Property Limited’s claims can be considered at the hearing.
Get Smart Property Limited’s claims are dismissed.
Get Smart Property Limited must pay Marcella Lena Dorgan-Guy and Ned Joseph Floyd $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $908.50 (3373072-007) to Marcella Lena Dorgan-Guy and Ned Joseph Floyd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. This is a mandatory requirement.
At the hearing the tenants decided they would waive their right to notice and have the landlord’s claims dealt with at the hearing. This was allowed because the claims are straight forward, the tenants already had knowledge of the claims and it was expeditious to do so. The landlord’s claims are for cleaning and painting touch ups.

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)
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See sections 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) and 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord claimed four hours of cleaning. Two hours was for a “high ceiling clean” and another hour was for cleaning ceilings in the bedroom and the bathroom. Tenants are not required to clean ceilings at the end of the tenancy, regardless of whether there is mould on the ceilings.
The remaining hour of cleaning was for wiping the soap dispenser on the washing machine, wiping a roll down blind in the bathroom, a small amount of dusting, and wiping a wall in the sunroom. I have seen the photos provided by the landlord and it seems likely to me the cleaning could be achieved quickly by a simple wipe down.
I find the tenancy premises were left reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The cleaners also cleaned the venetian blinds in the kitchen. This took an hour. I find the tenants are not responsible for cleaning the venetian blinds. If the blinds need more than a simple dust - which would have taken less than an hour - then I find the landlord should clean them as a maintenance job between tenancies. This claim is dismissed.

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.
There was some damage to the painted walls during the tenancy. The tenants agreed they removed two adhesive hooks and these tore paint off two walls, leaving a small patch that needs repair. The landlord is also claiming for painting part of two walls, where the landlord said the tenants intentionally damaged the walls with furniture and a rubbish bin. The tenants do not agree to the claims.
I find the tenants are not responsible for the two hooks. They used the same hooks they have used previously and were very surprised when they did not come off as advertised, and as they had in their previous tenancies. Tenants are not responsible for accidental damage. I am not persuaded the damage becomes intentional damage just because the landlord gave an instruction to leave any hooks at the end of the tenancy. This part of the claim is dismissed.
I have considered the claims for the other painting. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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 consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord does not know when the walls were last painted, but the owners bought the house five years ago. Painted walls are expected to last about five years in a residential tenancy. From the photos I would say the walls were painted before then. The tenants video identified a number of areas showing wear and tear. There is agreed evidence that the landlord and the tenants spent some time going through photos from the start of the tenancy, identifying existing damage to the painted walls at the start of the tenancy. I find that any order the tenants pay for painting would mean the landlord was better off. This part of the claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond is refunded to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4593209 — Mould & damp at 6 Duppa Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4593209 — Mould & damp at 6 Duppa Street, Berhampore, Wellington 6023

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