What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4720383?

The tribunal order states: Janine Claire Colquhoun must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4720383?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $182.51 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Garage Remote: $215.93 awarded to landlord; To Walls And Removal Of Dog Fence: $349.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720383?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720383?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10070763-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4720383?

The tribunal order states: Janine Claire Colquhoun must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4720383?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $182.51 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Garage Remote: $215.93 awarded to landlord; To Walls And Removal Of Dog Fence: $349.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720383?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720383?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10070763-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 23 Marjoriefield Mews, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720383 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720383 — net $1,067.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$182.51	Cleaning
Missing garage remote	$215.93	Missing garage remote
Lawns	$161.00	Lawns
Repairs: to walls and removal of dog fence	$349.37	Repairs: to walls and removal of dog fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,067.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,067.25

Ms Gibson and Ms Combrink appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The tenancy ended on 29 September 2023. On 23 August 2023, the landlord filed an application for rent arrears. On 24 October 2023, the landlord filed a further claim for compensation and damages. The two claims were not linked. On 16 November 2023, the Tribunal awarded the landlord vacated rent arrears and ordered refund of the bond. The other claim was listed for hearing before me today, 12 March 2024.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”)

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the inside of the property in a reasonably clean condition, failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy, failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean, and failed to return the garage remote.

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) of the Act.

The Act 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).

The landlord has produced a pre tenancy checklist and photographs. The property was new, and the tenant was the first occupant. The end of tenancy inspection report which includes photographs, shows that the tenant has failed to leave some areas of the inside of the property in a reasonably clean condition, namely the glass around the cat door, the inside of the kitchen drawers, the inside of the oven, under the sink in the bathroom vanity, under the laundry tub, the shower, and the toilet. The claim for cleaning also includes emptying and cleaning the general waste bin.

The lawns were long and required mowing, twice. There were two small stains to the carpet in two of the bedrooms, removed by professional spot cleaning. The remote control to the garage door provided to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy was not returned.

The landlord seeks $138.00 to remove the stains on the carpet, $182.51 for cleaning, $161.00 for lawn mowing, and $215.56 to replace and reprogram the garage remote.

The amounts ordered are proved.

There is an additional claim made that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, namely the content of the yellow lid recycling bin. However, no evidence has been produced, and that claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for minor damage.

To succeed with a claim for damage 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 of the Act.

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) of the Act.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Having viewed the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and heard from Ms Gibson, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a small scratch to wall in bedroom, a paint chip hallway wall, small scratches on wall in another bedroom, eight small scratches to the walls in the garage, and two screw holes in a window frame in the lounge. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim also includes the removal of a temporary dog fence erected by the tenant.

I make no deduction for betterment and depreciation. The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy, the tenancy lasted nine months, and the repairs were to the damaged areas only. The $349.37 claimed to repair the damage, which includes removing the fence is reasonable and awarded in full.

Because Glasshouse Property Management Limited acting as Agent for Connor McCashin and Helena McHugh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720383 — net $1,067.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$182.51	Cleaning
Missing garage remote	$215.93	Missing garage remote
Lawns	$161.00	Lawns
Repairs: to walls and removal of dog fence	$349.37	Repairs: to walls and removal of dog fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,067.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,067.25

Ms Gibson and Ms Combrink appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks $138.00 to remove the stains on the carpet, $182.51 for cleaning, $161.00 for lawn mowing, and $215.56 to replace and reprogram the garage remote.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for minor damage.

Because Glasshouse Property Management Limited acting as Agent for Connor McCashin and Helena McHugh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720383 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 23 Marjoriefield Mews, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720383 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 23 Marjoriefield Mews, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206

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