What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4626449?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4626449?

Cleaning: $90.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $233.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4626449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4626449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9348373-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4626449?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4626449?

Cleaning: $90.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $233.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4626449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4626449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9348373-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

357 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4626449 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4626449 — net $13.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning: Mattress and Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Cleaning: Mattress and Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: End of tenancy clean	$90.85	Cleaning: End of tenancy clean
Heater replacement	$233.11	Heater replacement
Net award	$13.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13.90

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Alexander Paul Jobbitt must pay Superior Properties Limited $13.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $480.00 to Superior Properties Limited immediately.
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy. The boarding house tenancy ended on 13 April 2023.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims that the carpet and bed mattress required cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also had to arrange an end of tenancy clean. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that he accepts these three claims. I have also sighted photographic evidence and receipts in support of these claims.
The amounts ordered in respect of carpet cleaning, mattress cleaning and end of tenancy clean are proved and ordered accordingly.

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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 damage to the following items: a. Bedside table b. Curtain damage c. Mattress protector d. Wall heater
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a wall heater. Photographic evidence clearly shows damage to the heater which is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord stated that the heater was purchased in May 2021 and was damaged beyond repair. The photos also show that the heater has been dented and stained. The tenant accepts the claim relating to the wall heater.
The amount ordered in respect of the wall heater is proved.
The remaining damage claims by the landlord for curtain and mattress protector replacement and damage to the bedside table are dismissed. Having carefully considered the evidence filed in support of these three claims I am satisfied that this is fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of rust on the bedside table. This is clear evidence of fair wear and tear. Apart from needing a good clean I could see no evidence that the bedside table had been intentionally damaged.
There was no evidence provided confirming the condition of the curtains when the tenant moved in.
It is also reasonable to expect for health reasons that the mattress protector would need to be changed at the conclusion of each tenancy. I can see no evidence of damage. Tenant’s Application
The tenant has filed a cross application and seeks compensation. He claims that the landlord did not provide him with a copy of the Healthy Homes compliance statement and assessment report.
He also claims that his liability is limited pursuant to section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant stated during the hearing that the landlord had failed to provide him with the Healthy Homes Assessment Report. The landlord stated that it was provided to him at the start of the tenancy. The tenant was asked whether he had formally requested a copy from the landlord. He confirmed that he had but was unable to provide evidence of this. He stated that he emailed the request to the landlord but was unable to provide evidence of his ‘sent’ email. The landlord confirmed that they had not received any requests from the tenant. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim.
Given my findings above in respect of the damage claims I also dismiss the tenant’s claim for a breach of section 49B.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful with his application I do not order suppression of name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4626449 — net $13.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning: Mattress and Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Cleaning: Mattress and Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: End of tenancy clean	$90.85	Cleaning: End of tenancy clean
Heater replacement	$233.11	Heater replacement
Net award	$13.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13.90

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Alexander Paul Jobbitt must pay Superior Properties Limited $13.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $480.00 to Superior Properties Limited immediately.
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy. The boarding house tenancy ended on 13 April 2023.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims that the carpet and bed mattress required cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also had to arrange an end of tenancy clean. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that he accepts these three claims. I have also sighted photographic evidence and receipts in support of these claims.
The amounts ordered in respect of carpet cleaning, mattress cleaning and end of tenancy clean are proved and ordered accordingly.

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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 damage to the following items: a. Bedside table b. Curtain damage c. Mattress protector d. Wall heater
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a wall heater. Photographic evidence clearly shows damage to the heater which is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord stated that the heater was purchased in May 2021 and was damaged beyond repair. The photos also show that the heater has been dented and stained. The tenant accepts the claim relating to the wall heater.
The amount ordered in respect of the wall heater is proved.
The remaining damage claims by the landlord for curtain and mattress protector replacement and damage to the bedside table are dismissed. Having carefully considered the evidence filed in support of these three claims I am satisfied that this is fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of rust on the bedside table. This is clear evidence of fair wear and tear. Apart from needing a good clean I could see no evidence that the bedside table had been intentionally damaged.
There was no evidence provided confirming the condition of the curtains when the tenant moved in.
It is also reasonable to expect for health reasons that the mattress protector would need to be changed at the conclusion of each tenancy. I can see no evidence of damage. Tenant’s Application
The tenant has filed a cross application and seeks compensation. He claims that the landlord did not provide him with a copy of the Healthy Homes compliance statement and assessment report.
He also claims that his liability is limited pursuant to section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant stated during the hearing that the landlord had failed to provide him with the Healthy Homes Assessment Report. The landlord stated that it was provided to him at the start of the tenancy. The tenant was asked whether he had formally requested a copy from the landlord. He confirmed that he had but was unable to provide evidence of this. He stated that he emailed the request to the landlord but was unable to provide evidence of his ‘sent’ email. The landlord confirmed that they had not received any requests from the tenant. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim.
Given my findings above in respect of the damage claims I also dismiss the tenant’s claim for a breach of section 49B.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the tenant has been unsuccessful with his application I do not order suppression of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4626449 — Cleanliness at 357 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4626449 — Cleanliness at 357 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

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