What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698991?

The tribunal order states: Makayla Marshall to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $115.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4698991?

Cleaning: $825.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpayment: $710.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698991?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9650311-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698991?

The tribunal order states: Makayla Marshall to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $115.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4698991?

Cleaning: $825.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpayment: $710.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698991?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9650311-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

628 Queen Street East, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698991 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698991 — net $115.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$825.00		Carpet Cleaning
Rent overpayment		$710.00	Rent overpayment
Total award	$825.00	$710.00
Net award	$115.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$115.00

Order

Makayla Marshall to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $115.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6312767-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentcare Property Management Limited: $115.00 Makayla Marshall: $2,205.00
The remaining applications are 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 tenancy.
The tenant applied for reimbursement of overpaid rent and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records, and which show the rent paid throughout the tenancy puts the tenant into a rent credit at the end of the tenancy. This largely arose because the tenant paid rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, the WINZ set up a rent redirection to pay rent immediately.

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.
The landlord alleges tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant disputes this claim.
The tenant’s evidence is that the photographs relied on by landlord were taken on 16 August 2023, which was the last day of the tenancy. She was still in the process of cleaning at that point and returned to remove the rubbish while the carpet was being cleaned. The tenant provided evidence of a trip to the dump on 16 August 2023.
The landlord agrees that the last day of the tenancy was 16 August 2023, and that the inspection and photographs were undertaken on that day. The landlord says that rubbish was removed on 17 August 2023. There is no direct evidence from the person the landlord says removed the rubbish on 17 August 2023.
On balance, I accept the evidence of the tenant that the rubbish was removed on 16 August 2023. That evidence is supported by the tip receipt. Further, the tenancy ended on 16 August 2023, and the tenant was entitled to access the property throughout that day to fulfil her obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Taking the photographs prior to the end of the tenancy was premature.
Accordingly, I consider the landlord has not proved this portion of the claim and it 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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Carpet cleaning/stain removal. b. Damage to the heat pump ducting. c. Damage to a power point in the lounge. d. Broken glass in the sunroom door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. Carpet
In relation to the carpet cleaning, it is common ground that the carpet had staining and some wear and tear prior to the tenancy.
The landlord submits that there was additional dirt and grime caused during the tenancy, which required steam cleaning to remove.
The tenant accepts that her children did cause some additional staining to the carpet, and noting that she had 5 children, she accepts there may have been additional dirt. The tenant’s position is that this was largely focussed in the lounge area, rather than the entire house.
Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs provided, I agree that the lounge area is worse than the rest of the house, however the rest of the carpet also required some cleaning. On balance, I consider that the steam cleaning of all rooms is justified in the circumstances.
The amounts ordered are proved. Heat pump ducting
The landlord claims that the underfloor ducting has been damaged, likely by a dog or similar, chewing on it. The tenant disputes liability for the damage.
There are no photographs showing the damage to the ducting.
While I accept there was damage that required fixing, the claim against the tenant must fail, for the following reasons – a. There is no evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy. b. There is no evidence that the tenant had a dog at the property, or invited guests with dogs to stay c. There is no evidence or submissions to support a conclusion that the damage was either careless or intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Power point
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a power point in the living room. The landlord relies on a note from the electrician that the damage was caused by “rough use”, together with photographs from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence is that the power point was damaged and loose at the start of the tenancy, and it got progressively worse through ordinary use.
The tenant’s evidence is that she told the landlord about the damage, in person, during routine property inspections, that promises were made to repair it, but that this never happened.
I note that the property manager in the hearing is not the person who does property inspections. From what I can tell, there is a person employed to undertake all property inspections. That person was not in the hearing today.
The electrician did not give direct evidence, either in person on in writing. The invoice relied on by the landlord was generated by them on receipt of the electrician’s invoice. While I have no reason to doubt the quantum of the claim, it does deprive me of any notes made by the electrician.
Accordingly, the only direct evidence I have on this point is from the tenant. I found the tenant to be an open and reliable witness, who made appropriate concessions when necessary, and did not appear to be overstating her evidence. On balance, I accept that there was damage to the power point from the beginning of the tenancy, that this was raised with the landlord via the person doing the inspections, but no repairs were undertaken. I consider any additional damage to be a combination of wear and tear and accidental damage.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Broken door
The landlord is seeking compensation for a broken glass pane in the door leading from the living room to the sunroom.
The tenant accepts this window broke during the tenancy.
The tenant’s explanation is that shortly after the tenancy commenced, the door handle came off the door, including the latching mechanism. This meant the door no longer closed securely. As this in an internal door, the repair was not urgent, and she advised the landlord at a property inspection.
In the January 2023 property inspection, there is a photograph of the door, showing the handle missing. There is also a note to say that the tenant was breached” for drying washing inside without ventilating the house property, this led to dampness and a damp smell. The tenant was asked to keep the house well ventilated when drying washing inside.
The tenant accepts that that advise was given, and she complied with it, leaving all windows and doors open when drying washing in the house.
It was during one of these occasions that a gust of wind blew the sunroom door open, and the glass hit the corner of the open window frame and smashed.
I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point. It is corroborated to an extent by the notes for the January 2023 inspection. Having seen the photographs, I can see how the door hit the window frame in the wind.
Accordingly, I accept that this was accidental damage, rather than careless of intentional damage.
The tenant has disproved liability for the damage and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698991 — net $115.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$825.00		Carpet Cleaning
Rent overpayment		$710.00	Rent overpayment
Total award	$825.00	$710.00
Net award	$115.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$115.00

Order

Makayla Marshall to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $115.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6312767-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentcare Property Management Limited: $115.00 Makayla Marshall: $2,205.00
The remaining applications are 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 tenancy.
The tenant applied for reimbursement of overpaid rent and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records, and which show the rent paid throughout the tenancy puts the tenant into a rent credit at the end of the tenancy. This largely arose because the tenant paid rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, the WINZ set up a rent redirection to pay rent immediately.

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.
The landlord alleges tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant disputes this claim.
The tenant’s evidence is that the photographs relied on by landlord were taken on 16 August 2023, which was the last day of the tenancy. She was still in the process of cleaning at that point and returned to remove the rubbish while the carpet was being cleaned. The tenant provided evidence of a trip to the dump on 16 August 2023.
The landlord agrees that the last day of the tenancy was 16 August 2023, and that the inspection and photographs were undertaken on that day. The landlord says that rubbish was removed on 17 August 2023. There is no direct evidence from the person the landlord says removed the rubbish on 17 August 2023.
On balance, I accept the evidence of the tenant that the rubbish was removed on 16 August 2023. That evidence is supported by the tip receipt. Further, the tenancy ended on 16 August 2023, and the tenant was entitled to access the property throughout that day to fulfil her obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Taking the photographs prior to the end of the tenancy was premature.
Accordingly, I consider the landlord has not proved this portion of the claim and it 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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Carpet cleaning/stain removal. b. Damage to the heat pump ducting. c. Damage to a power point in the lounge. d. Broken glass in the sunroom door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. Carpet
In relation to the carpet cleaning, it is common ground that the carpet had staining and some wear and tear prior to the tenancy.
The landlord submits that there was additional dirt and grime caused during the tenancy, which required steam cleaning to remove.
The tenant accepts that her children did cause some additional staining to the carpet, and noting that she had 5 children, she accepts there may have been additional dirt. The tenant’s position is that this was largely focussed in the lounge area, rather than the entire house.
Having heard the evidence and seen the photographs provided, I agree that the lounge area is worse than the rest of the house, however the rest of the carpet also required some cleaning. On balance, I consider that the steam cleaning of all rooms is justified in the circumstances.
The amounts ordered are proved. Heat pump ducting
The landlord claims that the underfloor ducting has been damaged, likely by a dog or similar, chewing on it. The tenant disputes liability for the damage.
There are no photographs showing the damage to the ducting.
While I accept there was damage that required fixing, the claim against the tenant must fail, for the following reasons – a. There is no evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy. b. There is no evidence that the tenant had a dog at the property, or invited guests with dogs to stay c. There is no evidence or submissions to support a conclusion that the damage was either careless or intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Power point
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a power point in the living room. The landlord relies on a note from the electrician that the damage was caused by “rough use”, together with photographs from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence is that the power point was damaged and loose at the start of the tenancy, and it got progressively worse through ordinary use.
The tenant’s evidence is that she told the landlord about the damage, in person, during routine property inspections, that promises were made to repair it, but that this never happened.
I note that the property manager in the hearing is not the person who does property inspections. From what I can tell, there is a person employed to undertake all property inspections. That person was not in the hearing today.
The electrician did not give direct evidence, either in person on in writing. The invoice relied on by the landlord was generated by them on receipt of the electrician’s invoice. While I have no reason to doubt the quantum of the claim, it does deprive me of any notes made by the electrician.
Accordingly, the only direct evidence I have on this point is from the tenant. I found the tenant to be an open and reliable witness, who made appropriate concessions when necessary, and did not appear to be overstating her evidence. On balance, I accept that there was damage to the power point from the beginning of the tenancy, that this was raised with the landlord via the person doing the inspections, but no repairs were undertaken. I consider any additional damage to be a combination of wear and tear and accidental damage.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Broken door
The landlord is seeking compensation for a broken glass pane in the door leading from the living room to the sunroom.
The tenant accepts this window broke during the tenancy.
The tenant’s explanation is that shortly after the tenancy commenced, the door handle came off the door, including the latching mechanism. This meant the door no longer closed securely. As this in an internal door, the repair was not urgent, and she advised the landlord at a property inspection.
In the January 2023 property inspection, there is a photograph of the door, showing the handle missing. There is also a note to say that the tenant was breached” for drying washing inside without ventilating the house property, this led to dampness and a damp smell. The tenant was asked to keep the house well ventilated when drying washing inside.
The tenant accepts that that advise was given, and she complied with it, leaving all windows and doors open when drying washing in the house.
It was during one of these occasions that a gust of wind blew the sunroom door open, and the glass hit the corner of the open window frame and smashed.
I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point. It is corroborated to an extent by the notes for the January 2023 inspection. Having seen the photographs, I can see how the door hit the window frame in the wind.
Accordingly, I accept that this was accidental damage, rather than careless of intentional damage.
The tenant has disproved liability for the damage and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698991 — Cleanliness at 628 Queen Street East, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698991 — Cleanliness at 628 Queen Street East, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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