What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4678709?

The tribunal order states: Clinton Morris to pay Collett Realty Limited $427.44 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4678709?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4678709?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10135532-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4678709?

The tribunal order states: Clinton Morris to pay Collett Realty Limited $427.44 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4678709?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4678709?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10135532-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, Unit/Flat 25, 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Tenancy Tribunal Case 4678709 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4678709 — net $427.44 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	$125.00	Cleaning
Mattress clean	$80.50	Mattress clean
Repairs: Wall repair	$201.50	Repairs: Wall repair
Net award	$427.44
Bond	$1,178.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$427.44

Order

Clinton Morris to pay Collett Realty Limited $427.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,178.94 (6456981-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Collett Realty Limited: $427.44 Clinton Morris: $751.50

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 tenancy.
The premises consist of a 4-bedroom apartment. Each tenant rents a room and has a separate Tenancy Agreement.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They say that it took the cleaner all day to clean the tenant’s room. The exit photographs provided with the application were taken on 2 August 2023.
The cleaning invoice provides no information on what the cleaner did for the fee or how long it took to clean the premises.
The landlord also provided a video of the exit inspection taken on 2 August 2023. This was not provided prior to the hearing but instead shown to me during the hearing on the landlord’s mobile phone. The property manager who took the video was dramatic in his narrative and unprofessional in his occasional use of expletives.
The tenant does not accept the cleaning invoice. He says that at the end of his tenancy he thoroughly cleaned the premises using professional grade products. He says that he left the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A large number of the photographs provided by the landlord were blurred and not in focus. What I can see is that there were some parts of the premises which required spot cleaning. The evidence provided by the landlord however does not support the claim that it took all day to clean. Overall, the premises are in good condition. I do not accept that a full day was required to undertake a spot clean.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning is allowed however I reduce the amount recognising that spot cleaning was required as supported by the evidence. Rubbish removal:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord says that the tenant left behind rubbish and personal belongings. The tenant says that the property was left behind by other tenants living in the other rooms. The fee claimed also includes the tip fee.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the tenant confirmed it was his rubbish and that he had no way of removing it. There was no evidence provided by the landlord in support of this assertion.
The tenant maintains that none of this rubbish was his.
The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence taken at the start of the tenancy supporting this claim. I also accept that other people were residing in different rooms within the apartment. I cannot be satisfied that the tenant is directly responsible for the rubbish left behind.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord also claims that there was plaster on the carpet left behind by the tenant which required professional cleaning.
I have sighted the limited photographs provided by the landlord in support of this claim. I have also viewed the video of the exit inspection. The carpet is in very good condition, and it is my view that the tenant left the carpet in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant should not be required to pay for a professional carpet clean in this instance.
The claim in respect of carpet cleaning is dismissed. Bed mattress:
The landlord claims that the bed mattress required professional cleaning. The tenant accepts this claim.
The claim relating to the bed mattress is therefore allowed.

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. Wall damage:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls. The tenant says that he installed black-out curtains. The evidence clearly shows where attempts have been made to plaster over the holes on the two walls.
The tenant claims that this is fair wear and tear.
I do not agree. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Drilling holes into a wall is a deliberate act. The landlord is entitled to claim compensation for reasonable expenses incurred in repairing the damage. The landlord should also 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.
I allow this claim but reduce the amount awarded as set out below. Bedside cabinet:
The landlord also claims that the tenant damaged the top of a bedside cabinet. The tenant replied stating that this was caused his monitor. The tenant says that the fee to repair the scratches on the bedside table which involved plastering the top and repainting is unreasonable. He also believes that this damage is fair wear and tear.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless or thoughtless and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or a probable result of the breach. This means that the damage will not be compensated if considered to be too remote.
I find that the damage to the bedside cabinet was careless and allow the claim but reduced.
The landlord’s claim for the wall and bedside cabinet damage was recorded on the same invoice from D and R Painting Limited dated 9 August 2023 however the claim for five hours work is not supported by the evidence provided. I award half the amount claimed which is in line with the evidence provided by the landlord.
Because Collett Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4678709 — net $427.44 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	$125.00	Cleaning
Mattress clean	$80.50	Mattress clean
Repairs: Wall repair	$201.50	Repairs: Wall repair
Net award	$427.44
Bond	$1,178.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$427.44

Order

Clinton Morris to pay Collett Realty Limited $427.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,178.94 (6456981-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Collett Realty Limited: $427.44 Clinton Morris: $751.50

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 tenancy.
The premises consist of a 4-bedroom apartment. Each tenant rents a room and has a separate Tenancy Agreement.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They say that it took the cleaner all day to clean the tenant’s room. The exit photographs provided with the application were taken on 2 August 2023.
The cleaning invoice provides no information on what the cleaner did for the fee or how long it took to clean the premises.
The landlord also provided a video of the exit inspection taken on 2 August 2023. This was not provided prior to the hearing but instead shown to me during the hearing on the landlord’s mobile phone. The property manager who took the video was dramatic in his narrative and unprofessional in his occasional use of expletives.
The tenant does not accept the cleaning invoice. He says that at the end of his tenancy he thoroughly cleaned the premises using professional grade products. He says that he left the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A large number of the photographs provided by the landlord were blurred and not in focus. What I can see is that there were some parts of the premises which required spot cleaning. The evidence provided by the landlord however does not support the claim that it took all day to clean. Overall, the premises are in good condition. I do not accept that a full day was required to undertake a spot clean.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning is allowed however I reduce the amount recognising that spot cleaning was required as supported by the evidence. Rubbish removal:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord says that the tenant left behind rubbish and personal belongings. The tenant says that the property was left behind by other tenants living in the other rooms. The fee claimed also includes the tip fee.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the tenant confirmed it was his rubbish and that he had no way of removing it. There was no evidence provided by the landlord in support of this assertion.
The tenant maintains that none of this rubbish was his.
The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence taken at the start of the tenancy supporting this claim. I also accept that other people were residing in different rooms within the apartment. I cannot be satisfied that the tenant is directly responsible for the rubbish left behind.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord also claims that there was plaster on the carpet left behind by the tenant which required professional cleaning.
I have sighted the limited photographs provided by the landlord in support of this claim. I have also viewed the video of the exit inspection. The carpet is in very good condition, and it is my view that the tenant left the carpet in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant should not be required to pay for a professional carpet clean in this instance.
The claim in respect of carpet cleaning is dismissed. Bed mattress:
The landlord claims that the bed mattress required professional cleaning. The tenant accepts this claim.
The claim relating to the bed mattress is therefore allowed.

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. Wall damage:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls. The tenant says that he installed black-out curtains. The evidence clearly shows where attempts have been made to plaster over the holes on the two walls.
The tenant claims that this is fair wear and tear.
I do not agree. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Drilling holes into a wall is a deliberate act. The landlord is entitled to claim compensation for reasonable expenses incurred in repairing the damage. The landlord should also 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.
I allow this claim but reduce the amount awarded as set out below. Bedside cabinet:
The landlord also claims that the tenant damaged the top of a bedside cabinet. The tenant replied stating that this was caused his monitor. The tenant says that the fee to repair the scratches on the bedside table which involved plastering the top and repainting is unreasonable. He also believes that this damage is fair wear and tear.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless or thoughtless and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or a probable result of the breach. This means that the damage will not be compensated if considered to be too remote.
I find that the damage to the bedside cabinet was careless and allow the claim but reduced.
The landlord’s claim for the wall and bedside cabinet damage was recorded on the same invoice from D and R Painting Limited dated 9 August 2023 however the claim for five hours work is not supported by the evidence provided. I award half the amount claimed which is in line with the evidence provided by the landlord.
Because Collett Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678709 — Cleanliness at Room 4, Unit/Flat 25, 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678709 — Cleanliness at Room 4, Unit/Flat 25, 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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