How much money was awarded in case 4612669?

Break Lease Costs: $333.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $909.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9397450-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4612669?

Break Lease Costs: $333.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $909.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9397450-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Huntingdon Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4612669 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612669?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612669. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Break lease costs	$333.75	Break lease costs
Rubbish removal	$60.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Painting	$909.98	Repairs: Painting

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (5545211-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited As Agent For El Toro Loco Trust: $1,453.73 Darryl Burke and Angelique Fittock: $1,306.27

All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant consented to the landlord claims being heard at the same time, despite those claims not being filed with the Tribunal (see s.22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). General Law

The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might best be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral evidence at the hearing. I have to consider all that evidence in coming to a decision on whether something is more likely than not.

In this matter, the onus or job of proving the claim falls on each of the parties with regards to their respective claims. The onus of proving the tenant claim is on the tenant. The onus of proving the landlord claim is on the landlord.

Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.

The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

The tenanted premises were at 16 Huntingdon Place, Christchurch (“ the premises”).

The tenancy commenced on 18 June 2021 and ended on 8 June 2023.

The tenant seeks ; • Release of the bond. • Return of overpaid rent. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord seeks compensation for; • Cleaning • Break lease costs. • Rubbish removal. • Garden work. • Painting; • Release of the bond. Tenant claims

The tenant seeks release of the bond. The release or otherwise is dependent on the landlord claims.

The tenant seeks compensation for overpaying the rent, but was unable to provide any evidence in support of that claim. That claim is dismissed. Landlord Claims

The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning costs.

In support of the claim, the landlord provided an invoice for its cleaners for $382.96 and an extensive range of photos which the landlord claims show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, which is the standard required of the tenant under the RTA.

The landlord said that the premises were let out to new tenants on Friday 9 June 2023.

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 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 (ss 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 emphasis is mine). .

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).

This was a “break lease” situation of a fixed term tenancy. The cleaning was carried out by the landlord contractor on 7 and 8 June 2023, just prior to the new tenancy commencing.

The tenant said that they had tried to contact the landlord after the final inspection to see if any further cleaning needed to be done. They did not hear from the landlord. I accept in the circumstances, that there was limited time for the landlord to respond to the tenant prior to the start of the new tenancy. The tenant had returned the key to the landlord on 6 June 2023.

In coming to a decision, I consider the following to be relevant. • The photos provided by the landlord do show some areas which I do not consider to be reasonably clean and tidy. • The majority of the photos show premises which are reasonably clean and tidy. • No further cleaning has been carried out by the landlord between tenancies. The cleaning has been carried out to a standard which the landlord accepted was a standard suitable for new tenants. That is a standard above the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard required of the tenant.

Taking those factors into account I order the tenant to pay the landlord $150.00 for cleaning.

The landlord seeks compensation for break lease costs of $333.75. The tenant consented to this order.

The landlord sought compensation for Rubbish Removal.

The landlord provided an invoice for $150.00 for the removal of the rubbish from the council bins.

Both parties accepted that rubbish had been left by the tenants at the end of the tenancy in the bins provided by the local council.

The tenant says that the landlord simply needed to put the bins out for collection at the next collection date.

The landlord would have been required to provide the new tenants with empty and clean bins. Having said that, $150.00 seems excessive to remove rubbish from 4 council rubbish bins.

The tenant is responsible for leaving the bins empty and clean at the end of the tenancy. I consider $60.00 to be a reasonable charge for the removal of the rubbish.

The landlord seeks compensation in the sum of $155.25 for garden work. The landlord provided an invoice for “weeding, weed spray and dump fees” and photos of the garden taken both prior to and after the tenancy ended.

The tenant said that he is a professional weed sprayer and garden maintenance contractor. He said that he had used a leaf blower to clear bark back into the garden and removed 2 bins of garden waste at the end of the tenancy. He said that he applied weed spray to the weeds and that the spray would usually take no more than 2 weeks to kill off the weeds. He said that there was no need for the further weed spraying carried out by the landlord.

In this matter I prefer the evidence of the tenant . The claim is for weeding, weed spraying and dump fees. I find that no further weed spraying was actually required. The landlord was in a position where they could have made enquiries with the tenant but did not do so. The application 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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 (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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) 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.

The landlord seeks compensation for sanding and painting in a number of areas within the house and in the staircase in particular.

The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy they discovered that the tenant had attempted to repair and repaint an extensive number of paint scuffs and dents throughout much of the house.

The landlord said that the house was last painted just prior to the commencement of the tenancy in 2021.Claims on the landlord’s insurance policy were not accepted by the insurer as each and every incident would attract an excess. That excess payment would have been greater than the cost of repair. The landlord provided a large number of photos. Some of the photos simply did not disclose any damage at all. It may have been as a result of the lighting or the copying of the photos.

The landlord‘s contractor said that it seemed that the tenant had attempted repairs and that these had not been carried out in a workmanlike manner and that there seemed to be a variation on the paint used and the original colour.

The landlord accepted that the work carried out by the tenant had been done with the best of intentions.

The tenant accepted that some damage had been done to the walls during the course of moving into the premises. He said that he found some paint at the premises and used that to carry out repairs.

In this matter, I accept that the initial damage was caused accidentally and the tenant “repair,” whilst done with good intentions, has left the premises in need of repair.

The landlord provided a quote for the repair of $1,819.97. This included repairs, sanding and painting.

The damage caused is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

In coming to a decision on the correct level of compensation, I have taken into account betterment and 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The premises have been tenanted for 2 years with the inevitable wear and tear of daily life. Repainting substantial areas will result in betterment to the benefit of the landlord. I consider that payment of half of the quoted cost by the tenants ($909.98) will be appropriate compensation and that amount is ordered.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612669. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Break lease costs	$333.75	Break lease costs
Rubbish removal	$60.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Painting	$909.98	Repairs: Painting