What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724229?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for a reduction of a fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4724229?

BY CONSENT – Tv Bracket: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; BY CONSENT To Door: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724229?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9899761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724229?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for a reduction of a fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4724229?

BY CONSENT – Tv Bracket: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; BY CONSENT To Door: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724229?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9899761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5784 South Road, Rahotu, Opunake 4684 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724229 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724229 — net $250.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: BY CONSENT to door	$210.00	Repairs: BY CONSENT to door
BY CONSENT – Tv bracket	$20.00	BY CONSENT – Tv bracket
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$250.44
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724229 — net $250.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: BY CONSENT to door	$210.00	Repairs: BY CONSENT to door
BY CONSENT – Tv bracket	$20.00	BY CONSENT – Tv bracket
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$250.44
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.44

Order

The tenant’s application for a reduction of a fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for cleaning, damage to the wall behind the rear door and fuel costs is dismissed.
Bhavinkumar Dilipbhai Pandya and Avani Pandya to pay Darshan B Desai and Dhruvkumar Desai $250.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (6500406-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Darshan B Desai and Dhruvkumar Desai: $250.44 Bhavinkumar Dilipbhai Pandya and Avani Pandya: $1,189.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone at the request of both parties.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of a fixed-term tenancy. Fixed term tenancy
The tenant’s application is for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy (s 66, Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The tenancy agreement sets out that the tenancy began on 12 August 2023 and that it is for a fixed period until 9 August 2024.
During the course of the tenancy Mr Panya says he had difficulties with work and so needed to move to a different location. He says he negotiated with his landlord to end the tenancy early.
Both parties agreed that following communications between them the tenancy ended on 28 October 2023. This was supported by the fact that this was the date upon which the tenant gave the keys to the landlord and left the property, giving the landlord possession.
The landlord now has new tenants in the property. Neither party considers that the tenancy is ongoing.
There is therefore no ongoing fixed term tenancy for me to reduce. The parties have already resolved the position.
The tenant’s claim for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy is therefore dismissed.

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. Cleaning
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
There will often be some cleaning and tidying work required in between tenancies and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost.
The application for compensation for cleaning was filed on the basis of a cleaning quote. The landlord sought $895 for an end of tenancy clean of a three bedroom house and the cleaning of carpets.
The landlord says he did not in fact employ professional cleaners but he did the cleaning work around the house himself. He says it took about 4 or 5 hours and it included removing some smaller miscellaneous items left by the tenant.
The landlord says the house smelt from cooking. The tenant says that was not the case.
The probative evidence provided by the landlord in relation to cleaning was limited to just three photographs of the carpet in the lounge and a photograph of a stove top. The tenant however provided well over 100 photographs taken of the property on the last day of the tenancy.
I find that the tenant’s photographs are the best evidence to show the overall state of the property. They show a property overall in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They show a property which overall appears to have been cleaned very well.
It is far from clear from the landlord’s evidence what exactly the tenants left that should have been removed or how long it took the landlord to remove those items. Even, assuming that the landlord’s position is that the smaller items that appear in the tenant’s own photographic evidence should have been taken (broadly speaking, some foil/baking paper, several pans and food containers and some cleaning items), their disposal would not have taken anything around 4-5 hours - Rather it would have taken several minutes.
It is also not clear from the landlord’s evidence what he considered he needed to do to clean the property. The landlord seemed to be of the view that it was sufficient that he had a quote to clean a three bedroom house but this insufficient to establish that the house is not reasonably clean and tidy. From the photographs provided I am not satisfied that the stove top was not reasonably clean and tidy. It does not have to be professionally cleaned.
Of the $895 claimed for cleaning $260.87 plus GST relates to cleaning the carpets including sanitising the entrance, stairs and landing.
From the photographs provided I am not satisfied that the carpets were not left reasonably clean and tidy because: a. There is no probative evidence of the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. In the absence of this I cannot be satisfied that the tenant is responsible for removing the stains. b. There was no probative evidence of the smell the landlord says existed. The tenant disputes this. The existence of a smell to necessitate the cleaning included in the application is not proven.
Further, the only evidence of marks on a carpet are those in the lounge that were evidenced in photographs by the landlord. The marks are small and would not amount to requiring a whole house needing to have its carpets cleaned as claimed.
In any event, the carpet cleaning has still not been done (the tenancy ended in October 2024) and new tenants have moved in. I am not satisfied that the landlord will undertake any cleaning of the carpets or the true cost that would be incurred for the cleaning of the carpet or that the landlord has established that they have suffered a loss.
The cleaning claim is therefore dismissed. Missing TV bracket
This is considered below.

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. TV bracket
The landlord says the tenant did not leave a TV bracket at the end of the tenancy on the wall and it has been removed.
The parties agree that the bracket had a TV on it on the wall at the start of the tenancy. The tenant bought the TV during the tenancy and he says he mistakenly thought that his purchase included the bracket. The landlord says the sale didn’t include the bracket.
The landlord says that when the tenant removed the TV and bracket at the end of the tenancy this left holes in the wall where the bracket had been.
The landlord sought $60. The tenant offered to return the bracket but the landlord refused this. The tenant agreed to pay $20 in compensation to settle this part of the application and the landlord agreed. Internal door
The landlord says that the tenant damaged a door opposite the front door. The tenant agreed to pay the landlord $210 in relation to this damage and the landlord agreed. This order is therefore made by consent. Wall behind rear door
The landlord says that the tenant damaged a wall behind the rear door and seeks repair costs.
A photograph of the damage taken at the end of the tenancy is provided by the landlord. The landlord says that the photograph of the damage was taken on the day the tenancy ended. The tenant says there was no damage there when he left the property. The tenant’s photograph of the area is not clear enough to discern this.
Even if the damage occurred during the tenancy, I consider it most likely that this damage was accidental given its location. It would seem most likely that the dent to the wall has occurred due to a solid brass type handle on the door that opens into that area. This claim is therefore dismissed. Fuel cost
The landlord claims the fuel cost of driving from Auckland where the landlord is based to deal with the early end of the tenancy and the damage and cleaning. The tenant disputes liability for this.
I do not consider this to be a loss that is claimable from the tenant.
It expected that a landlord will spend some time and incur some costs when it comes to the management of a tenancy. This is simply part of the business of being a landlord. By way of comparison, a local property manager cannot claim their fuel cost for driving from their office to a premises they manage to, for example, conduct an end of tenancy check or to let contractors into a property. This is no different.
Indeed, in Bowen v Klasema TT 230/90 the landlord among other things, was claiming for his transport costs between Christchurch, where he lived, and Wellington where the property was situated. In dismissing this application the Tribunal noted that the landlords had made a commercial decision to let a property in Wellington while they lived in Christchurch. It was therefore inevitable they would have costs which were associated with that decision. If those costs were awarded the effect would be to penalise tenants for renting a property which is owned by people who do not live in the region. The Tribunal concluded this was not appropriate.
Similarly, to Bowen here the landlord has also made this commercial decision to rent this property in Opunake although he lives in Auckland. The tenant should not be penalised for this.
In any event, in so far as the landlord says this cost relates to the cleaning and damage claims, I have dismissed the claim for the cleaning and one of the damage claims and the landlord did not fix the damage for which awards have been made by consent during this trip because the damage remains outstanding.
There is no evidence that paying the landlord’s travel costs was agreed to when the tenant was released from the fixed term tenancy early.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has had some success and so I award the landlord the filing fee.
The tenant was not successful in their application and therefore is not awarded their filing fee.
The landlord has not been substantially successful and neither has the tenant. I therefore decline to award name suppression (s 95A, RTA)

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724229 — Property damage at 5784 South Road, Rahotu, Opunake 4684

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724229 — Property damage at 5784 South Road, Rahotu, Opunake 4684

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

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

Frequently asked questions