What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608258?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4608258?

Cleaning: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; To 2 X Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608258?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9459482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608258?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4608258?

Cleaning: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; To 2 X Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608258?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9459482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Belvedere Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608258 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608258 — net $931.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 2 February 2023	$1,600.00	Rent owed to 2 February 2023
Carpet Cleaning	$235.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$192.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to 2 x doors	$1,000.00	Repairs: to 2 x doors
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$931.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$931.94

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Peggy Koutsos and Jimmy Houtas must pay Team Group Rentals Limited $931.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,196.00 (5951989-001) to Team Group Rentals Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agreed to pay for the replacement key at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent and for car storage?

It is agreed evidence the tenants moved out on 2 February 2023, but the landlord has claimed rent until August, which is when a car belonging to the tenants was removed. I find the tenancy ended at the agreed date, on 2 February 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what landlords must do with belongings left at the end of the tenancy and claiming full rent until the item is removed is not one of the options available. See sections 62 and 62A RTA.
Other than the requirement to securely store goods of value left at the end of the tenancy the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over long term car storage. The tenant produced a document signed by the owner which states there was an agreement the tenant could store his car in the garage after the tenancy ended. I find the claim for the cost of storing the car is not proved and it is dismissed.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord has claimed $540 compensation for the cost of additional cleaning after the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they cleaned the 100 year old house and left it in a reasonable condition. They submitted that the $540 was the cost to return the house to a condition achieved with a commercial clean, and it was not reasonable to expect them to pay for this. They also submitted that the landlord should have done the final inspection with them present, and allowed them the opportunity to remedy the issues.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness - see section 45(1)(a) RTA. 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) 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).
I note there is no requirement in the RTA that landlords and tenants complete ingoing and outgoing inspections together. There is also nothing in the RTA which states tenants should have an opportunity to carry out extra cleaning or repairs after the tenancy ends.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos provided by the landlord. I have not allowed for any additional cleaning of the kitchen, the bathroom, the laundry, or the window frames because it is hard to tell from the photos whether additional cleaning was necessary, or if these areas are just old. I am persuaded that some of the doors, the skirting boards, and the oven needed additional cleaning. I have allowed $80 for this cleaning, which is an amount that seems reasonable to me.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning which I have allowed. The landlord proved this claim and the amount claimed is reasonable.

Are the tenants 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. See section 49B(3)(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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
There was damage to two doors and two walls during the tenancy. I have not allowed the claim for the painting and repair done in 2022 because the tenant were not billed at the time and there is nothing in writing which makes it clear the tenants would have to pay at the end of the tenancy.
The damage to the wall when removing posters is not allowed. This is because of depreciation. 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. This wall was panted at least 6 years ago, is showing signs of wear and tear, and is due for repainting anyway.
The tenant agreed her son kicked holes in two doors. I find this damage to be careless damage for the reasons given at the hearing. I have allowed $1000, which is an amount that seems fair to me for the repair and for the painting, based on other similar claims in the Tribunal.
There was also a claim for the insurance excess for damage to the wooden floorboards in the lounge. The landlord provided good photos and it seems most likely to me there was careless damage. However, the landlord must prove loss in order for me to order compensation. I am not persuaded the landlord has suffered a loss because there is no proof the landlord has filed a claim with the insurer, and the floors have not been fixed even though the tenancy ended over seven months ago. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants made an application for suppression at the hearing. This is not allowed because they are not the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608258 — net $931.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 2 February 2023	$1,600.00	Rent owed to 2 February 2023
Carpet Cleaning	$235.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$192.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: to 2 x doors	$1,000.00	Repairs: to 2 x doors
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$931.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$931.94

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Peggy Koutsos and Jimmy Houtas must pay Team Group Rentals Limited $931.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,196.00 (5951989-001) to Team Group Rentals Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants agreed to pay for the replacement key at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent and for car storage?

It is agreed evidence the tenants moved out on 2 February 2023, but the landlord has claimed rent until August, which is when a car belonging to the tenants was removed. I find the tenancy ended at the agreed date, on 2 February 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what landlords must do with belongings left at the end of the tenancy and claiming full rent until the item is removed is not one of the options available. See sections 62 and 62A RTA.
Other than the requirement to securely store goods of value left at the end of the tenancy the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over long term car storage. The tenant produced a document signed by the owner which states there was an agreement the tenant could store his car in the garage after the tenancy ended. I find the claim for the cost of storing the car is not proved and it is dismissed.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord has claimed $540 compensation for the cost of additional cleaning after the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they cleaned the 100 year old house and left it in a reasonable condition. They submitted that the $540 was the cost to return the house to a condition achieved with a commercial clean, and it was not reasonable to expect them to pay for this. They also submitted that the landlord should have done the final inspection with them present, and allowed them the opportunity to remedy the issues.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness - see section 45(1)(a) RTA. 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) 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).
I note there is no requirement in the RTA that landlords and tenants complete ingoing and outgoing inspections together. There is also nothing in the RTA which states tenants should have an opportunity to carry out extra cleaning or repairs after the tenancy ends.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos provided by the landlord. I have not allowed for any additional cleaning of the kitchen, the bathroom, the laundry, or the window frames because it is hard to tell from the photos whether additional cleaning was necessary, or if these areas are just old. I am persuaded that some of the doors, the skirting boards, and the oven needed additional cleaning. I have allowed $80 for this cleaning, which is an amount that seems reasonable to me.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning which I have allowed. The landlord proved this claim and the amount claimed is reasonable.

Are the tenants 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. See section 49B(3)(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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
There was damage to two doors and two walls during the tenancy. I have not allowed the claim for the painting and repair done in 2022 because the tenant were not billed at the time and there is nothing in writing which makes it clear the tenants would have to pay at the end of the tenancy.
The damage to the wall when removing posters is not allowed. This is because of depreciation. 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. This wall was panted at least 6 years ago, is showing signs of wear and tear, and is due for repainting anyway.
The tenant agreed her son kicked holes in two doors. I find this damage to be careless damage for the reasons given at the hearing. I have allowed $1000, which is an amount that seems fair to me for the repair and for the painting, based on other similar claims in the Tribunal.
There was also a claim for the insurance excess for damage to the wooden floorboards in the lounge. The landlord provided good photos and it seems most likely to me there was careless damage. However, the landlord must prove loss in order for me to order compensation. I am not persuaded the landlord has suffered a loss because there is no proof the landlord has filed a claim with the insurer, and the floors have not been fixed even though the tenancy ended over seven months ago. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants made an application for suppression at the hearing. This is not allowed because they are not the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608258 — Property damage at 43 Belvedere Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608258 — Property damage at 43 Belvedere Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and for car storage?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and for car storage?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions