What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752489?

The tribunal order states: Diego Barrese and Analia Salvador are to pay Victoria Hatton $1,579.61 from

How much money was awarded in case 4752489?

Cleaning: $267.97 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $74.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $1,067.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752489?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10140840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752489?

The tribunal order states: Diego Barrese and Analia Salvador are to pay Victoria Hatton $1,579.61 from

How much money was awarded in case 4752489?

Cleaning: $267.97 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $74.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $1,067.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752489?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10140840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66 Manawatu Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752489 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752489 — net $1,579.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$74.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$267.97	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: doors	$1,067.20	Repairs: doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,579.61
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,579.61

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that her 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 considered when weighing all the evidence.

Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.

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, do not infer 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.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

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)-(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.

In this tenancy, the landlord consented to the tenant keeping two dogs at the property. In these circumstances, it is fair and reasonable that the tenant clean up after their pets. This includes removing all hair and any dog smell.

The landlord advised that despite trying two carpet treatments, the smell remains. The landlord provided evidence from the current tenant of the issues that remain with the smell of the tenant’s pets. I will consider her claim for replacement of the carpet later. For now, it is sufficient to determine that the landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for the reasonable costs she has incurred in trying to clean the carpet.

The landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy. Many of the issues with the state of the property relate to residue left by the tenant’s dogs. The evidence supports the landlord’s claim that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The amount claimed by the landlord is modest and is reasonable for the work required to bring the property up to the appropriate standard.

The tenant denied the landlord’s claim for having the lawns mowed, gardens tidied and the rubbish removed. He advised that he mowed the lawns a week before the end of the tenancy.

The tenant’s obligation is to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, not at the time the tenant vacated the property. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the lawns and garden required work commensurate with the amount claimed for and this sum is awarded.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 has claimed for the costs of replacing the carpet in three bedrooms. She claimed that the damage was caused by the tenant’s dogs urinating on the carpet. The landlord provided photographic evidence and the evidence of the current tenant about the pervading smell of dog urine in the property. She also advised that there had been no other dogs in the property since it was recarpeted in 2018.

The tenant denied any liability and denied that their dogs urinated inside. The tenant explained that the dogs were kept in a dog crate and that they had no knowledge of their dogs urinating in the house.

The tenant also noted that the smell of which the landlord now complains was not raised at any of the property inspections during the tenancy and that the landlord has only raised this issue at the end of the tenancy after the tenant had vacated.

No matter how obvious to the landlord and the new tenant, it is difficult for the landlord to prove that a smell exists and that it was caused by the tenant’s dogs. Acceptable proof may be a specialist report from a commercial carpet cleaner confirming that the carpets are damaged beyond treatment and that the contamination is caused by dog urine. The landlord did not provide such proof. The landlord’s claim must therefore be dismissed.

The landlord provided photographic evidence of damage to the side door and the French doors to the deck area. The landlord claimed that the damage was caused by the tenant’s dogs and the evidence supports that claim. The landlord gave evidence that the areas had been painted 18 months before the tenancy started.

The tenant denied that the damage was any more than fair wear and tear and that the tenant is not therefore responsible for the repairs.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused by the tenant’s dogs during the tenancy. The tenant is responsible for damage caused by their dogs, just as they would be responsible had a child scribbled on the walls.

It is appropriate that the tenant pay for the repair and repainting in accordance with the quote provided by the landlord and this sum is awarded to the landlord.

Because Victoria Hatton has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752489 — net $1,579.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$74.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$267.97	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: doors	$1,067.20	Repairs: doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,579.61
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,579.61