What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4782899?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (5965164-006) to William

How much money was awarded in case 4782899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782899?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10477546-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4782899?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (5965164-006) to William

How much money was awarded in case 4782899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782899?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10477546-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Ferniehurst Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782899 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (5965164-006) to William Joshua Mapplethorpe and Anna Mapplethorpe immediately.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of other costs incurred at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claims are somewhat unusual in that the tenant incurred cost at the end of the tenancy and now claims reimbursement on the basis that it should not have been reasonably required to pay those costs. The amounts claimed are $689.00 for an internal door repair, $110 for window cleaning and $190 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $500 for cleaning drapes at the end of the tenancy. Tenant 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).
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 requirement for a tenant to leave premises “allergen free”.
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.
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably clean condition.
The tenant claimed that clauses requiring commercial cleaning, carpet cleaning and window cleaning were unenforceable, so they should be reimbursed for the cost of the carpets and windows.
Such clauses are unenforceable. However, a landlord may still be able to recover those costs if a tenant has not complied with its obligations at the end of the tenancy. As noted above, commercial carpet cleaning may be required to return carpet to a reasonably clean condition. This will depend on the evidence in each case.
The tenant was the applicant in this case. It was for the tenant to show that the carpet and window cleaning was not reasonably required. The tenant did not provide evidence to that effect. Rather, in relation to the windows, he said he would have preferred to clean them himself. The tenant claims for window and carpet cleaning are dismissed.
The landlord claimed $500 for cleaning drapes at the end of the tenancy. The drapes were water stained from condensation. The landlord also said that linings had to be replaced because of water damage.
The tenant disputed this claim and said that staining was inevitable given condensation issues at the property. The tenants had raised condensation with the landlord throughout this 4-year tenancy. The tenant’s evidence was that they ventilated the premises (as one of the tenants works from home) and had purchased a window vacuum to alleviate the issue.
The landlord said that no-one else had ever had a problem with condensation. Whereas the tenants claimed to be aware that the current tenants are having a similar issue. I put no weight on either of those statements.
Rather, I look to the correspondence between the parties regarding condensation, photographs of the condensation from during the tenancy and photographs of historical water staining on the timber around the windows. On balance, it seems that some water staining was likely even if the property was well ventilated. The landlord has not established its claim for cleaning of the curtains. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants claimed reimbursement of a payment made to replace a glass pane in an internal door. They say that the damage was accidental, and they should not have paid the repair cost. They said that, at most, they should have to pay an insurance excess and the landlord has not provided them with insurance details.
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.
A glass pane in an internal door was damaged when the tenant was replacing a handle. The tenant had not advised the landlord of the need for a handle replacement. I accept that the tenant was acting in good faith. However, he should have notified the landlord that there was an issue with the handle and requested a repair or replacement. See s40(1)(d) RTA.
While the glass damage was accidental, the tenant’s decision to carry out repairs rather than notify the landlord was deliberate or intentional. The damage to the glass door occurred in circumstance where the tenant was breaching its obligation to the landlord. I accept the landlord’s submissions in this regard and find that the tenant is not entitled to reimbursement of the repair cost. The claim for reimbursement for the glass repair is dismissed.
The landlord was not obliged to make an insurance claim in respect of the glass. However, I remind the landlord that a tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The bond will be refunded to the tenant. Overall, I do not consider that the tenant was substantially successful. Most of its claims were dismissed. I have declined the tenant’s application for suppression.
Having regard to the respective degrees of success, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (5965164-006) to William Joshua Mapplethorpe and Anna Mapplethorpe immediately.
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of other costs incurred at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claims are somewhat unusual in that the tenant incurred cost at the end of the tenancy and now claims reimbursement on the basis that it should not have been reasonably required to pay those costs. The amounts claimed are $689.00 for an internal door repair, $110 for window cleaning and $190 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $500 for cleaning drapes at the end of the tenancy. Tenant 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).
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 requirement for a tenant to leave premises “allergen free”.
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.
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably clean condition.
The tenant claimed that clauses requiring commercial cleaning, carpet cleaning and window cleaning were unenforceable, so they should be reimbursed for the cost of the carpets and windows.
Such clauses are unenforceable. However, a landlord may still be able to recover those costs if a tenant has not complied with its obligations at the end of the tenancy. As noted above, commercial carpet cleaning may be required to return carpet to a reasonably clean condition. This will depend on the evidence in each case.
The tenant was the applicant in this case. It was for the tenant to show that the carpet and window cleaning was not reasonably required. The tenant did not provide evidence to that effect. Rather, in relation to the windows, he said he would have preferred to clean them himself. The tenant claims for window and carpet cleaning are dismissed.
The landlord claimed $500 for cleaning drapes at the end of the tenancy. The drapes were water stained from condensation. The landlord also said that linings had to be replaced because of water damage.
The tenant disputed this claim and said that staining was inevitable given condensation issues at the property. The tenants had raised condensation with the landlord throughout this 4-year tenancy. The tenant’s evidence was that they ventilated the premises (as one of the tenants works from home) and had purchased a window vacuum to alleviate the issue.
The landlord said that no-one else had ever had a problem with condensation. Whereas the tenants claimed to be aware that the current tenants are having a similar issue. I put no weight on either of those statements.
Rather, I look to the correspondence between the parties regarding condensation, photographs of the condensation from during the tenancy and photographs of historical water staining on the timber around the windows. On balance, it seems that some water staining was likely even if the property was well ventilated. The landlord has not established its claim for cleaning of the curtains. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants claimed reimbursement of a payment made to replace a glass pane in an internal door. They say that the damage was accidental, and they should not have paid the repair cost. They said that, at most, they should have to pay an insurance excess and the landlord has not provided them with insurance details.
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.
A glass pane in an internal door was damaged when the tenant was replacing a handle. The tenant had not advised the landlord of the need for a handle replacement. I accept that the tenant was acting in good faith. However, he should have notified the landlord that there was an issue with the handle and requested a repair or replacement. See s40(1)(d) RTA.
While the glass damage was accidental, the tenant’s decision to carry out repairs rather than notify the landlord was deliberate or intentional. The damage to the glass door occurred in circumstance where the tenant was breaching its obligation to the landlord. I accept the landlord’s submissions in this regard and find that the tenant is not entitled to reimbursement of the repair cost. The claim for reimbursement for the glass repair is dismissed.
The landlord was not obliged to make an insurance claim in respect of the glass. However, I remind the landlord that a tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The bond will be refunded to the tenant. Overall, I do not consider that the tenant was substantially successful. Most of its claims were dismissed. I have declined the tenant’s application for suppression.
Having regard to the respective degrees of success, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782899 — Cleanliness at 14 Ferniehurst Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782899 — Cleanliness at 14 Ferniehurst Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions