What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773679?

The tribunal order states: Lynlee Bird to pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Mok

How much money was awarded in case 4773679?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773679?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10232814-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773679?

The tribunal order states: Lynlee Bird to pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Mok

How much money was awarded in case 4773679?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773679?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10232814-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

108 Naylor Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773679 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773679 — net $988.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: door repair, holes in walls	$218.50	Repairs: door repair, holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$988.94
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$988.94

Order

Lynlee Bird to pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Mok Family Trust $988.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6333389-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Mok Family Trust: $988.94 Lynlee Bird: $1,331.06

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew its claim for carpet cleaning.
The tenancy commenced on 25 March 2022. The tenancy ended as the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice that they were carrying out refurbishment and renovations to the extent that it would not be reasonably practical for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was being done.

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 (RTA).
Cleaning and Rubbish: The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant’s view was that as the property was undergoing renovation, including stripping the wallpaper from most of the rooms in the house and replacing the carpet, there was no need for her to do an end of tenancy clean. She said the renovation work would cause a mess and cleaning could be done after the work was completed.
The tenant also said she left the house in the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy. Her mother gave evidence that the house was not clean when the tenancy started.
I accept that the renovation work will cause a need for the property to be cleaned. However a tenant has an obligation to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy establish that Miss Bird did not meet her obligation. What is happening to the premises after the tenancy ends does not negate the need for the tenant to meet their obligations under the RTA. Here cleaning will need to be done before some of the renovation work (ie painting) can be done, and other cleaning will need to be carried out (including the cleaning of the oven) regardless of the renovation work.
Miss Bird has not provided any photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the hearing. The pre-tenancy inspection report was signed by Miss Bird on 24 March 2022, which is the day before the tenancy started. It does not record any issues with cleanliness. Miss Bird says she was not given a copy of the report to add her comments to. However the report states just above where the tenant has signed: “The tenant agrees to notify the landlord in writing within 10 days of the commencement of the tenancy if there are any additional defects not stated in this report.”
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant did not notify the landlord of any issues with the cleanliness of the premises after the tenancy commenced. I give more weight to this evidence than Miss Bird’s evidence including her mother’s evidence.
The landlord claims $488.75 for cleaning, of which I have awarded $450.00 as I am not persuaded by the photographs that the carpet required vacuuming. In making this award I have considered that a quote has been provided rather than an invoice. I am satisfied the cleaning claimed is necessary and the quoted cost reasonable for the work needed, and is likely to be carried out on a piecemeal basis to fit in with the renovations.
Gardens/Lawns and outside rubbish: The lawns required mowing and the gardens required significant weeding and tidying at the end of the tenancy. The photographs establish that rubbish has been left outside. A sum of $1,517.64 is claimed based on a quote. The property manager advised that the owner has paid someone in the neighbour cash to do the work, rather than the quote provider but that no receipts are available to establish the cost incurred.
Miss Bird raised the same issues as she did with the cleaning claim: that the gardens were not clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy and she has returned them in a similar state, except for some tree/shrub removal that she undertook. My view of her position is the same as for the cleaning. That is, there is no evidence corroborating Miss Bird’s and her mother’s view, and Miss Bird has not contacted the landlord stating that the condition of the gardens/lawns was not reasonable at the start of the tenancy.
In balancing the need to compensate the landlord for the tenant’s breach with the failure of the landlord to provide evidence supporting its actual losses I find the sum awarded is reasonable.
Keys: The landlord claims $345.00 to rekey 4 locks and to supply and install an entrance set. The landlord has supplied a photograph of 3 keys given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, and says the tenant should have left 3 keys but only left 1 key when she vacated. The landlord did not provide a photograph of the key/s left by the tenant.
The tenant says there was a break-in during her tenancy and as there was no sign of forced entry the locks were rekeyed by the landlord. She said at that time a different lock was installed to the front door (previously the front and back door locks had the same key) and she was given 4 keys. The tenant says she left 4 keys on the bench when she vacated.
It is the landlord’s role, as the applicant, to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities being the onus of proof that applies. I am not sufficiently convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the tenant failed to leave all the keys therefore this part of the claim is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. I consider from the evidence that the damage was carelessly caused:
Holes in doors and walls: The tenant says the holes were in the doors and walls when she moved into the premises, and that if they were caused during her tenancy she would not have done such a poor plastering job. Her mother gave evidence that she had made notes about the condition of the premises, which included that these holes existed, when going through the premises with her daughter and the then property manager.
The pre-tenancy inspection report does not reflect that the holes which have been repaired existed at the start of the tenancy. The report records other damage to the premises. The tenant has signed the report and has not notified the landlord in writing after the tenancy started of any defects or damage. I note that the tenant’s mother said she made the notes when she went through the premises about 2 week’s before the tenancy started, rather that at the start of the tenancy.
After considering all of the evidence I find the signed pre-inspection report is the most convincing evidence and accordingly find that the holes which have been repaired were not there at the start of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord claims $218.50 ($190+gst) for the repairs, which I find is reasonable for the work involved.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The driveway retaining wall claim: The landlord claims $1,104.00 for repair to the driveway retaining wall. The photographs of the retaining wall and the damage show that where the damage is caused on the wall where it is one to two blocks high and that portion of the wall/blocks have been knocked over. The landlord says a neighbour advised the property manager that the tenant’s son rammed the wall repeatedly with his bike which caused the damage.
The tenant says the wall has been wobbly since the start of the tenancy, to the extent that it moves in a strong wind. She says the adjacent neighbours cut across her driveway, as they have a fence along their section of the footpath, and that their children frequently kicked the wall. She refutes that her son rammed into the wall with his bike.
The pre-tenancy inspection report records that the driveway fence is damaged. While the property manager that completed the report has left and is not available to give evidence, this comment raises doubt in my mind whether the “fence” referred to is the retaining wall. Regardless I find the landlord’s evidence blaming the tenant’s son for the damage to the wall is not persuasive or convincing. It is second-hand or hearsay evidence rather direct evidence.
In any event the house is a 1950’s – early 1960’s property and I find it likely that this also the age of the retaining wall. The mortar holding the blocks together looks dry and in need of replacement. I find it more likely that the wall has failed as it is in need of repair based on its age and fair wear and tear. For these reasons this part of the claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has succeeded with the majority of its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773679 — net $988.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: door repair, holes in walls	$218.50	Repairs: door repair, holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$988.94
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$988.94

Order

Lynlee Bird to pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Mok Family Trust $988.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6333389-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Mok Family Trust: $988.94 Lynlee Bird: $1,331.06

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew its claim for carpet cleaning.
The tenancy commenced on 25 March 2022. The tenancy ended as the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice that they were carrying out refurbishment and renovations to the extent that it would not be reasonably practical for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was being done.

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 (RTA).
Cleaning and Rubbish: The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant’s view was that as the property was undergoing renovation, including stripping the wallpaper from most of the rooms in the house and replacing the carpet, there was no need for her to do an end of tenancy clean. She said the renovation work would cause a mess and cleaning could be done after the work was completed.
The tenant also said she left the house in the condition it was in at the start of the tenancy. Her mother gave evidence that the house was not clean when the tenancy started.
I accept that the renovation work will cause a need for the property to be cleaned. However a tenant has an obligation to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy establish that Miss Bird did not meet her obligation. What is happening to the premises after the tenancy ends does not negate the need for the tenant to meet their obligations under the RTA. Here cleaning will need to be done before some of the renovation work (ie painting) can be done, and other cleaning will need to be carried out (including the cleaning of the oven) regardless of the renovation work.
Miss Bird has not provided any photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the hearing. The pre-tenancy inspection report was signed by Miss Bird on 24 March 2022, which is the day before the tenancy started. It does not record any issues with cleanliness. Miss Bird says she was not given a copy of the report to add her comments to. However the report states just above where the tenant has signed: “The tenant agrees to notify the landlord in writing within 10 days of the commencement of the tenancy if there are any additional defects not stated in this report.”
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant did not notify the landlord of any issues with the cleanliness of the premises after the tenancy commenced. I give more weight to this evidence than Miss Bird’s evidence including her mother’s evidence.
The landlord claims $488.75 for cleaning, of which I have awarded $450.00 as I am not persuaded by the photographs that the carpet required vacuuming. In making this award I have considered that a quote has been provided rather than an invoice. I am satisfied the cleaning claimed is necessary and the quoted cost reasonable for the work needed, and is likely to be carried out on a piecemeal basis to fit in with the renovations.
Gardens/Lawns and outside rubbish: The lawns required mowing and the gardens required significant weeding and tidying at the end of the tenancy. The photographs establish that rubbish has been left outside. A sum of $1,517.64 is claimed based on a quote. The property manager advised that the owner has paid someone in the neighbour cash to do the work, rather than the quote provider but that no receipts are available to establish the cost incurred.
Miss Bird raised the same issues as she did with the cleaning claim: that the gardens were not clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy and she has returned them in a similar state, except for some tree/shrub removal that she undertook. My view of her position is the same as for the cleaning. That is, there is no evidence corroborating Miss Bird’s and her mother’s view, and Miss Bird has not contacted the landlord stating that the condition of the gardens/lawns was not reasonable at the start of the tenancy.
In balancing the need to compensate the landlord for the tenant’s breach with the failure of the landlord to provide evidence supporting its actual losses I find the sum awarded is reasonable.
Keys: The landlord claims $345.00 to rekey 4 locks and to supply and install an entrance set. The landlord has supplied a photograph of 3 keys given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy, and says the tenant should have left 3 keys but only left 1 key when she vacated. The landlord did not provide a photograph of the key/s left by the tenant.
The tenant says there was a break-in during her tenancy and as there was no sign of forced entry the locks were rekeyed by the landlord. She said at that time a different lock was installed to the front door (previously the front and back door locks had the same key) and she was given 4 keys. The tenant says she left 4 keys on the bench when she vacated.
It is the landlord’s role, as the applicant, to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities being the onus of proof that applies. I am not sufficiently convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the tenant failed to leave all the keys therefore this part of the claim is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. I consider from the evidence that the damage was carelessly caused:
Holes in doors and walls: The tenant says the holes were in the doors and walls when she moved into the premises, and that if they were caused during her tenancy she would not have done such a poor plastering job. Her mother gave evidence that she had made notes about the condition of the premises, which included that these holes existed, when going through the premises with her daughter and the then property manager.
The pre-tenancy inspection report does not reflect that the holes which have been repaired existed at the start of the tenancy. The report records other damage to the premises. The tenant has signed the report and has not notified the landlord in writing after the tenancy started of any defects or damage. I note that the tenant’s mother said she made the notes when she went through the premises about 2 week’s before the tenancy started, rather that at the start of the tenancy.
After considering all of the evidence I find the signed pre-inspection report is the most convincing evidence and accordingly find that the holes which have been repaired were not there at the start of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord claims $218.50 ($190+gst) for the repairs, which I find is reasonable for the work involved.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The driveway retaining wall claim: The landlord claims $1,104.00 for repair to the driveway retaining wall. The photographs of the retaining wall and the damage show that where the damage is caused on the wall where it is one to two blocks high and that portion of the wall/blocks have been knocked over. The landlord says a neighbour advised the property manager that the tenant’s son rammed the wall repeatedly with his bike which caused the damage.
The tenant says the wall has been wobbly since the start of the tenancy, to the extent that it moves in a strong wind. She says the adjacent neighbours cut across her driveway, as they have a fence along their section of the footpath, and that their children frequently kicked the wall. She refutes that her son rammed into the wall with his bike.
The pre-tenancy inspection report records that the driveway fence is damaged. While the property manager that completed the report has left and is not available to give evidence, this comment raises doubt in my mind whether the “fence” referred to is the retaining wall. Regardless I find the landlord’s evidence blaming the tenant’s son for the damage to the wall is not persuasive or convincing. It is second-hand or hearsay evidence rather direct evidence.
In any event the house is a 1950’s – early 1960’s property and I find it likely that this also the age of the retaining wall. The mortar holding the blocks together looks dry and in need of replacement. I find it more likely that the wall has failed as it is in need of repair based on its age and fair wear and tear. For these reasons this part of the claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has succeeded with the majority of its claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773679 — Cleanliness at 108 Naylor Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773679 — Cleanliness at 108 Naylor Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

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