What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734699?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (6251004-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4734699?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734699?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9751273-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734699?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (6251004-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4734699?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734699?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9751273-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Thrush Street, Taihape, Taihape 4720 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4734699 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734699 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$300.00
Bond	$900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (6251004-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited: $300.00 Jacqueline Mosen: $600.00
Jacqueline Mosen is to pay Property Brokers Limited $300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord in person and the tenant by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In particular, the tenant did not clean the laundry, wipe out all cupboards and drawers and remove a small amount of rubbish.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: “A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters. “
The RTA 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).
No inspection report showing the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy was provided.
The tenant responsibly accepted that the items referred to in paragraph 4 were her responsibility and she was willing to pay a reasonable amount by way of compensation.
I have awarded sums that are proportionate to the work required based on the landlord’s photographic evidence and the many applications that come to the Tribunal on a routine basis.

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 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.
The landlord claimed and the tenant accepted that a window in a ranch slider was cracked during the tenancy. The tenant explained that she and her family were away from the property at a funeral and the damage was discovered upon her return. She advised that having made enquiries of her neighbours and lawn mower person, she was unable to determine who or what caused the damage. She notified the landlord’s agent of the damage immediately and was advised that the repair would not be her responsibility.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the damage and should be liable for the cost of repair.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734699 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$300.00
Bond	$900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (6251004-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited: $300.00 Jacqueline Mosen: $600.00
Jacqueline Mosen is to pay Property Brokers Limited $300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord in person and the tenant by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In particular, the tenant did not clean the laundry, wipe out all cupboards and drawers and remove a small amount of rubbish.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: “A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters. “
The RTA 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).
No inspection report showing the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy was provided.
The tenant responsibly accepted that the items referred to in paragraph 4 were her responsibility and she was willing to pay a reasonable amount by way of compensation.
I have awarded sums that are proportionate to the work required based on the landlord’s photographic evidence and the many applications that come to the Tribunal on a routine basis.

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 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.
The landlord claimed and the tenant accepted that a window in a ranch slider was cracked during the tenancy. The tenant explained that she and her family were away from the property at a funeral and the damage was discovered upon her return. She advised that having made enquiries of her neighbours and lawn mower person, she was unable to determine who or what caused the damage. She notified the landlord’s agent of the damage immediately and was advised that the repair would not be her responsibility.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the damage and should be liable for the cost of repair.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734699 — Cleanliness at 10 Thrush Street, Taihape, Taihape 4720

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734699 — Cleanliness at 10 Thrush Street, Taihape, Taihape 4720

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