What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609893?

The tribunal order states: Prince Negi must pay The Ned Sulenta Family Trust Company Limited $703.57

How much money was awarded in case 4609893?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Electrician Costs: $77.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,856.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9637677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609893?

The tribunal order states: Prince Negi must pay The Ned Sulenta Family Trust Company Limited $703.57

How much money was awarded in case 4609893?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Electrician Costs: $77.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,856.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9637677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 869 Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609893 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609893 — net $703.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electrician costs	$77.50	Electrician costs
Smoke damage remediation	$1,856.07	Smoke damage remediation
Net award	$703.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$703.57

Order

Prince Negi must pay The Ned Sulenta Family Trust Company Limited $703.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 to The Ned Sulenta Family Trust Company Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord and tenant. The tenant seeks a return of the bond (although at the hearing confirmed it could be released to the landlord), but the landlord seeks a range of compensation. The bond will be released based on the outcome from the landlords claim.
Both parties appeared at the hearing. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$120.00 Electrician costs$77.50 Smoke damage remediation$1,856.07 Total award$2,053.57 Minus bond- $1,350.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$703.57

BACKGROUND

There is no dispute that the parties are landlord and tenant. The tenancy commenced on 18 March 2022. The tenancy ended 5 September 2023.
I note at this juncture that the tenant confirmed that the premises were in good order at the start of the tenancy, the walls and carpets were in good condition.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning.
The tenant agreed with the carpet cleaning claim, and he does not oppose paying for this work.
This claim is accordingly ordered by request of the tenant. Electricians charge
The evidence is that during the tenancy, the tenants would use candles and burn incense inside the house. As confirmed in the photographs provided by the landlord at the hearing, at the end of the tenancy there was smoke staining to the ceiling and around the walls. The staining was notable above the light shade, where presumably the smoke would rise through the lightshade and concentrate through the gaps in the shade. In any event the photograph gives the impression that there was a fault with the light itself causing the smoke marks.
The landlord was concerned about the smoke appearance, and requested that the Fire Brigade attend to assess things. The Fire Brigade could not find evidence of fire, but did recommend that an electrician assess the electrical safety of the premises. That is just what the landlord did, but the electrician could not find any fault.
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems very likely that the smoke marking is a consequence of what the tenants were burning inside the dwelling. However given the smoke marking the landlords were faced with, and given what the Fire Brigade had recommended, it was entirely understandable that the landlord instructed an electrician to assess the premises.
Ultimately, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the tenant returned the premises reasonably clean, which given the extent of the smoke staining, I find the tenant did not do. There is to that extent, a causal nexus between a breach on the part of the tenant, and the smoke staining, leading to the landlord instructing the electrician. I find that the tenant must be liable for the electrician cost.
The electricians invoice has been provided, which totals $378.90. However it is the case, that the electrician undertook a range of other work, including repairs to the oven, and that extent it is not clear what the precise labour component was as far as the smoke marking is concerned. I consider a fair approach would be to order that the tenant pay half of the labour component for the electrician, including the service callout fee, which totals $77.50, and that is ordered. Methamphetamine screening
The landlord states that the tenant was evasive around the cause of the smoke, and because of that the landlords determined that it would be wise to test the premises for methamphetamine to eliminate a methamphetamine cause.
There is no legal obligation on the landlord to undertake methamphetamine testing. There is no problem if the landlord wishes to undertake methamphetamine testing, but that is not a cost the landlord can pass on to the tenant. I cannot see any basis to order the tenant to pay this cost, so this claim is dismissed. Remediation for smoke damage
The landlord claims the costs for Tri-Star Building Contractors Limited invoice of $1,856.07. The invoice records that was the cost for remediation of the smoke damage to the premises, including commercially cleaning and rehearing drapes and painting the ceilings and walls.
The tenant disputes this claim on the basis that the landlord did not give the tenant an opportunity for the tenant to undertake this work.
The landlord states that they have their own contractors they use, and it is not for the tenant to say who they should use. But ultimately the landlord notes that it makes no difference if the work was undertaken by the landlord or tenant, ultimately the tenant would be paying for it.
The tenancy ended on 5 September, and the tenant says that it was on 6 September that the landlord told him that they were not happy with the state of the premises.
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The smoke marking is very obvious in the photographs, and I accept that the remediation work was necessary in order to get the premises back to a state of being reasonably clean.
The objection from the tenant is based on the fact that he did not get an opportunity to undertake the work himself. The problem for the tenant, is that once the possession of the premises returned to the landlord on 5 September, the landlord was under no obligation to allow the tenant an opportunity back into the premises, to undertake the work. The tenants obligation was to return the premises reasonably clean on 5 September, and if the tenant did not achieve that, then the landlord can get on and have the work done, for which the tenant then becomes liable. That is the case here.
In my assessment the amount claimed is reasonable given the work that would have been necessary, and this is ordered in full.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609893 — net $703.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electrician costs	$77.50	Electrician costs
Smoke damage remediation	$1,856.07	Smoke damage remediation
Net award	$703.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$703.57

Order

Prince Negi must pay The Ned Sulenta Family Trust Company Limited $703.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 to The Ned Sulenta Family Trust Company Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord and tenant. The tenant seeks a return of the bond (although at the hearing confirmed it could be released to the landlord), but the landlord seeks a range of compensation. The bond will be released based on the outcome from the landlords claim.
Both parties appeared at the hearing. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$120.00 Electrician costs$77.50 Smoke damage remediation$1,856.07 Total award$2,053.57 Minus bond- $1,350.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$703.57

BACKGROUND

There is no dispute that the parties are landlord and tenant. The tenancy commenced on 18 March 2022. The tenancy ended 5 September 2023.
I note at this juncture that the tenant confirmed that the premises were in good order at the start of the tenancy, the walls and carpets were in good condition.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning.
The tenant agreed with the carpet cleaning claim, and he does not oppose paying for this work.
This claim is accordingly ordered by request of the tenant. Electricians charge
The evidence is that during the tenancy, the tenants would use candles and burn incense inside the house. As confirmed in the photographs provided by the landlord at the hearing, at the end of the tenancy there was smoke staining to the ceiling and around the walls. The staining was notable above the light shade, where presumably the smoke would rise through the lightshade and concentrate through the gaps in the shade. In any event the photograph gives the impression that there was a fault with the light itself causing the smoke marks.
The landlord was concerned about the smoke appearance, and requested that the Fire Brigade attend to assess things. The Fire Brigade could not find evidence of fire, but did recommend that an electrician assess the electrical safety of the premises. That is just what the landlord did, but the electrician could not find any fault.
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems very likely that the smoke marking is a consequence of what the tenants were burning inside the dwelling. However given the smoke marking the landlords were faced with, and given what the Fire Brigade had recommended, it was entirely understandable that the landlord instructed an electrician to assess the premises.
Ultimately, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the tenant returned the premises reasonably clean, which given the extent of the smoke staining, I find the tenant did not do. There is to that extent, a causal nexus between a breach on the part of the tenant, and the smoke staining, leading to the landlord instructing the electrician. I find that the tenant must be liable for the electrician cost.
The electricians invoice has been provided, which totals $378.90. However it is the case, that the electrician undertook a range of other work, including repairs to the oven, and that extent it is not clear what the precise labour component was as far as the smoke marking is concerned. I consider a fair approach would be to order that the tenant pay half of the labour component for the electrician, including the service callout fee, which totals $77.50, and that is ordered. Methamphetamine screening
The landlord states that the tenant was evasive around the cause of the smoke, and because of that the landlords determined that it would be wise to test the premises for methamphetamine to eliminate a methamphetamine cause.
There is no legal obligation on the landlord to undertake methamphetamine testing. There is no problem if the landlord wishes to undertake methamphetamine testing, but that is not a cost the landlord can pass on to the tenant. I cannot see any basis to order the tenant to pay this cost, so this claim is dismissed. Remediation for smoke damage
The landlord claims the costs for Tri-Star Building Contractors Limited invoice of $1,856.07. The invoice records that was the cost for remediation of the smoke damage to the premises, including commercially cleaning and rehearing drapes and painting the ceilings and walls.
The tenant disputes this claim on the basis that the landlord did not give the tenant an opportunity for the tenant to undertake this work.
The landlord states that they have their own contractors they use, and it is not for the tenant to say who they should use. But ultimately the landlord notes that it makes no difference if the work was undertaken by the landlord or tenant, ultimately the tenant would be paying for it.
The tenancy ended on 5 September, and the tenant says that it was on 6 September that the landlord told him that they were not happy with the state of the premises.
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The smoke marking is very obvious in the photographs, and I accept that the remediation work was necessary in order to get the premises back to a state of being reasonably clean.
The objection from the tenant is based on the fact that he did not get an opportunity to undertake the work himself. The problem for the tenant, is that once the possession of the premises returned to the landlord on 5 September, the landlord was under no obligation to allow the tenant an opportunity back into the premises, to undertake the work. The tenants obligation was to return the premises reasonably clean on 5 September, and if the tenant did not achieve that, then the landlord can get on and have the work done, for which the tenant then becomes liable. That is the case here.
In my assessment the amount claimed is reasonable given the work that would have been necessary, and this is ordered in full.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609893 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 869 Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609893 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 869 Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions