What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4720309?

The tribunal order states: Yvonne Emery to pay Keith Martin and Eva Kristina Nordtorp $350.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4720309?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720309?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11008767-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4720309?

The tribunal order states: Yvonne Emery to pay Keith Martin and Eva Kristina Nordtorp $350.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4720309?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720309?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11008767-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 30 Gordon Ave, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720309 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720309 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace gas bottles, repair scratched door and carpet cleaning	$350.00	22. However, the situation with the carpet cleaning is distinct.
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720309 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace gas bottles, repair scratched door and carpet cleaning	$350.00	22. However, the situation with the carpet cleaning is distinct.
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Order

Yvonne Emery to pay Keith Martin and Eva Kristina Nordtorp $350.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The landlords’ remaining claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (3092570-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Keith Martin and Eva Kristina Nordtorp: $350.00 Yvonne Emery: $850.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and partial refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes several of the claims. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, and did they cause any damage to the premises?
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 (“RTA”).
A landlord claiming compensation 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.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances:” Mercier v Smith & Greenan 14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93.
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.
“Fair wear and tear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises and the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear.
A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear as things wore out in the course of reasonable use: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. ... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.” (Nixon v Gear-Otter DC North Shore, TT 216/94, 30 January 1996, pages 26, 27)
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to discharge their burden of proof for each claim.
This was a long-standing tenancy of over 14 years. The tenancy commenced on 23 February 2009 and ended on 26 September 2023. The rent was $525.00 per week and the bond was $1,200.00.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $756.08 for the following: • Cleaning products • Carpet cleaning • Replace gas bottles • Hireage of digger (30 minutes) to recreate overland flow and get rid of mud and sand (left by tenant) from swimming pool base and raised gardens. • Recreating an overland flow for water through the property, where dirt and sand had been left by the tenant • Repairing front door • Removal of firewood
The landlords’ say: • On 28 September 2023, the landlord visited the rental property, which had been vacated by the tenant the previous week. It was noted that three dogs previously living in the house had been flown to England about six weeks earlier. • Upon inspection, there was a strong odour of dog and dog urine in the house. The landlord's brother (Evan Martin) was present and confirmed this in writing. Additionally, friends Dennis and Julie Payne visited on 9 October 2023, and also provided written confirmation. These statements are included in the Tribunal file. • The next-door neighbour reported that the outdoor dog kennels were removed a few weeks before the tenant left, and the dogs were brought inside while the tenant was at work. The landlord noted that the strong smell was not present six months prior during their last inspection. • There were also no scratches on the internal doors or carpet hole at the bathroom door. • During the last inspection, the tenant assured the landlord that the carpets and house would be cleaned before leaving. • The landlord spent 2.5 weeks cleaning the carpets, walls, and floors, as well as removing unused firewood and addressing water flow issues caused by dirt and sand left by the tenant from an outdoor pool and raised gardens. They disputed the tenant's claim that the mess was due to flooding. • Most of that time was spent on repeat cleaning of the carpet, trying various carpet cleaners and pet odour removers. • They have not charged any time for labour or mileage related to this work, nor have they claimed any rent loss due to the smell.
The tenant says: • The tenant acknowledges the landlord's claim for replacing gas bottles and repairing scratches on the front door, but disputes the other claims. • She believes she left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant contests the landlord’s statements regarding the duration the dogs were in the house. She asserts that the dogs were only in the house for four days after the kennels were removed, not for weeks as the landlord claims. According to her, the dogs were inside for a maximum of seven hours per day and did not create any mess. The tenant’s evidence was that she was not aware of any odour. She suggested that the cleaning process might have caused previously existing odours to resurface, possibly due to the old carpet, or that the odours could be a result of the house being closed up for a period of time. • Regarding the outdoor garden area, she attributes its condition to flooding that occurred in January of the previous year, which she claims prevented recovery. She mentioned sending videos of the flooding to the landlord at that time, but she no longer has access to them due to changing her phone SIM in the UK. She also pointed out that the area has always been wet. • The tenant states that the damaged door frame and carpet were known to the landlord at least three years before she left New Zealand. She describes the carpet as very old and rotting in some areas, and notes that the paint was also aging, with flaking and chipping. Specifically about the carpet at the back door, she claims the landlord was aware of its condition for at least two years, as he provided a mat to cover it. She believes she should not be held liable for these issues, which she attributes to normal wear and tear. Additionally, she feels the property was overdue for renovations.
Accordingly, whether the claim is against the bond or is a claim for compensation, the tenant’s obligations are limited by fair wear and tear, and the tenant is not liable for any deterioration in the condition of the premises while they are in residency that is the result of fair wear and tear. The mere fact that any part of the premises is in a lesser state at the end of a tenancy than at the beginning does not automatically mean that the tenant is liable to pay compensation. In the absence of clear evidence as to the lesser state being due to misuse or damage by the tenant, or that the premises are not reasonably clean, the landlord has not discharged their obligation to prove that the tenant is liable to pay compensation and the claim will be dismissed. The tenant is not expected to leave the premises in a pristine condition which will be the condition the landlord may wish to have the premises in to show them to prospective tenants.
In relation to a claim for compensation including a claim upon the bond the initial question is not whether the landlord has suffered loss or whether the landlord has carried out work to improve the condition of the premises from that in which the tenant left it. The starting point is proof of a breach by the tenant of an obligation under the tenancy agreement or the RTA.
I address the claims below.
Replace gas bottles and repair of scratched door: These claims were agreed by consent by the tenant.
General cleaning and carpet cleaning: After a 14-year tenancy, it is reasonable to expect a landlord to arrange or invest in a significant commercial clean. A tenancy of this duration often leaves wear and tear that goes beyond regular upkeep, even if the tenant has maintained the property responsibly. In such cases, it is customary and practical for landlords to arrange a commercial clean as part of standard property maintenance.
In assessing the tenant’s obligations, it’s essential to remember that they are only required to leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy.” This does not equate to an expectation of a full commercial clean, as additional cleaning is generally needed to prepare the property for re-letting and a cost shouldered by the landlord.
The photographic evidence provided was limited and did not fully substantiate the landlords’ claims regarding general cleaning. Based on the available evidence, I find that the claim for general cleaning was not proven to the required standard, and thus, I award no costs for this.
However, the situation with the carpet cleaning is distinct. The tenancy agreement was breached by allowing dogs inside, which reasonably warrants a carpet clean. Although there is no conclusive evidence linking any significant odour specifically to the dogs or dog urine, it is fair to award a contribution towards carpet cleaning and deodorising costs.
Recreating overland flow and getting rid of mud and sand (left by tenant) from swimming pool base and raised gardens: The landlord asserted that the issues related to recreating the overland flow and removing mud and sand from the swimming pool base and raised gardens were solely caused by the tenant's actions. The landlord rejected the tenant's explanation, which attributed the condition to flooding in January 2023.
However, I have no objective, expert evidence corroborating the landlord’s oral evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I am unable to accept this as anything other than the landlords’ subjective opinion. The landlord has not proven, on balance, that these issue must have been caused by the tenant, rather than any other potential factors. Based on the evidence, I am unable to exclude the possibility that the cause - such as severe weather conditions, including environmental factors – was entirely unconnected. Therefore, the landlords have not discharged his obligation of proving the claim and I dismiss the claim.
Damaged carpet: I am not persuaded that the damage to carpet is anything other than general deterioration or fair wear and tear and I dismiss those claims.
Remaining claims: Given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence supporting the landlords’ view, I find the remaining claims have not been proved to the required standard and are therefore dismissed. Conclusion
I award a contribution of $350.00 towards the replaced gas bottles, repair of scratched door and carpet cleaning which I consider reasonable in the circumstances. The remaining claims are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720309 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 30 Gordon Ave, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720309 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 30 Gordon Ave, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions