What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4790938?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal’s Order dated 6 May 2024 is amended and corrected to show the

How much money was awarded in case 4790938?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,210.00 awarded to landlord; Fill Holes: $120.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $334.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4790938?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4790938?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10822861-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4790938?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal’s Order dated 6 May 2024 is amended and corrected to show the

How much money was awarded in case 4790938?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,210.00 awarded to landlord; Fill Holes: $120.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $334.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4790938?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4790938?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10822861-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Blagdon Road, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4790938 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4790938 — net $888.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/12/23	$1,210.00	Rent arrears to 21/12/23
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$334.78	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$35.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$227.70	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Fill holes	$120.75	Repairs: Fill holes
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$888.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$888.67

Order

The Tribunal’s Order dated 6 May 2024 is amended and corrected to show the tenant as Amellia Liddall.
The Order remains as written but for that change.
Amellia Liddall must pay Ian James Law and Vanessa Henley $888.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the kitchen is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord made their application in the name of Amelia Liddall. This was the name on the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord now says that the correct spelling of the tenant’s name is Amellia Liddall (with an additional L in her first name) and has provided some evidence to support this. The order is amended to reflect this. The remainder of these reasons below remain as previously written in my order dated 6 May 2024.
Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The Tribunal must hear an application for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 21 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $1,210.

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 claims $280 for cleaning. The landlord had limited number of close-up photographs in particular the photographs shown showed kitchen drawers and cabinets were not reasonably clean. The oven was also not reasonably clean as was a wall in a bedroom.
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. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. By way of example, the landlord provided a photograph of additional cleaning that had to be done to the toilet. I have not taken this into account because the landlord said that the staining shown was after the toilet seat had been removed. I do not consider that a tenant has to remove a toilet seat to clean upon vacating a property.
Based on the evidence presented I find that the property was not left reasonably clean but there was insufficient evidence to support the extent of the cleaning claim. Based on the evidence provided I award the landlord $200 in relation to cleaning costs which is the sum I consider to be reasonable. Rubbish disposal
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises tidy as they left a significant amount of rubbish behind. It was primarily left in the garage and throughout the garden including under a deck. The landlord gathered the rubbish themselves and took it to the refuse station. The landlord undertook the work themselves. The landlords have done this by raising their own business invoices.
Photographs of the rubbish was provided including a photograph of the rubbish on the trailer after collection ready to be taken to the refuse site. The landlord says that a lot of the rubbish was time consuming to gather as it was under a deck and was smaller in nature (being cans, bottles, toys, plastic and clothing). The landlord claims $80.50 ($70 plus GST – 2 hours) for the taking of the rubbish to the refuse site in their trailer and $140 for the gathering of the items (4 hours). The landlord also claims the refuse disposal cost of $22 (gas bottle) and $132.53 for the trailer of items. The total claimed therefore for rubbish disposal is $375.03.
I do not consider that it would take two hours to load and take the trailer of rubbish from the tenancy address to the refuse station. I consider one hour to be reasonable in respect of this. I consider the reminder of the sums claimed reasonable on the basis of the evidence presented and therefore order $334.78 in relation to rubbish removal. Garden
The landlord claims that the garden was not left reasonably tidy. The landlord says that the garden had to be tidied with a weed eater and weeding had to be done. This work was done by one of the landlords with her partner and an invoice raised. No claim is made in relation to the cost of disposing of the green waste as the landlord did not have to take this to the refuse station but disposed of it elsewhere.
The landlord had a photograph of some of the debris collected around the garden in a pile, garden waste on a trailer, A small area that required weed eating/weeding and two patches of grass by the house.
The landlord has proven that the patches of grass pictured, and the area of weeds pictured meant the garden was not left reasonably clean and tidy. I award the landlord $35 as compensation to in relation to returning these areas to a reasonably tidy condition which I consider to be a reasonable sum given the size of the areas and the nature of the work.
However, in the absence of further probative evidence to support the oral evidence, I am unable to assess whether the other parts of the garden were left reasonably tidy, the nature of the work required and if established if the hours claimed are reasonable. The award is therefore limited to $35. Keys
The landlord claims $227.70 for keys given to the tenant that the landlord says were not returned. An invoice for rekeying the doors has been provided for this sum. The provision of keys is recorded in the tenancy agreement and the landlord says the tenant had one set of keys for the front, back and garage doors.
The landlord says the tenant stopped communicating with them after the tenancy apart from several text messages sent shortly after she moved out about not being able to return to the property for a walk through. I accept that the tenant did not return the keys. The sum ordered is proven. Damage
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.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan should be taken into account. Holes and painting
The landlord claims compensation for damage for a hole in the wall of bedroom 3, 2 holes in the wall of bedroom 4, a hole behind the laundry door and for many holes in the door to bedroom 4. These claims were supported by photographs and the ingoing property inspection report. I accept that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord did the work themselves and have raised business invoices one of the landlord’s filled the holes ($120.75) while the other did the preparation work and then did the painting ($175).
I accept that the cost to fill the holes is reasonable and award $120.75 in respect of this.
I decline to make a further award in respect of this damage. The tenant has been a tenant for over 10 years. The landlord’s say the paint work was 15 years old and required a paint given the length of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of painted walls in a rental property is between 5-14.4 years. I find that once depreciation is taking to account no award should be made for the paint work. Insurance excess
The landlord claims an insurance excess of $550 for water damage in the kitchen.
They say this was discovered when the tenant moved out. There was very limited photographic evidence of the damage itself. The landlord says there was a leak which caused water damage to a cabinet and kickboards. The damage was discovered when the tenant vacated the property.
The landlord undertook the work themselves at a cost of $632.50 and provided a business invoice for this work. The sum awarded by the insurer by way of a cash settlement was $950. An email from the insurer provided recorded the claim as being hidden gradual damage.
I dismiss this claim for compensation in respect of this damage. The evidence presented was not sufficiently clear as to why the tenant was responsible for damage caused by a leak that is said by the insurer to have been hidden and gradual.
Causation refers to the direct relationship between the actions of a party (the tenant) and the resulting harm or damage. Causation considers whether the tenant’s actions (or failure to act) were the cause-in-fact of the landlord’s harm (the damage). A "but-for" test is commonly used to determine causation. Causation in this context focuses on establishing a direct link between the conduct of the tenant and the harm suffered by the landlord. Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that the tenant (or anyone in the property with her permission) was the cause of the damage claimed to make her responsible.
This part of the application is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because Ian James Law, Vanessa Henley has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4790938 — net $888.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/12/23	$1,210.00	Rent arrears to 21/12/23
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$334.78	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$35.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$227.70	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Fill holes	$120.75	Repairs: Fill holes
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$888.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$888.67

Order

The Tribunal’s Order dated 6 May 2024 is amended and corrected to show the tenant as Amellia Liddall.
The Order remains as written but for that change.
Amellia Liddall must pay Ian James Law and Vanessa Henley $888.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the kitchen is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord made their application in the name of Amelia Liddall. This was the name on the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord now says that the correct spelling of the tenant’s name is Amellia Liddall (with an additional L in her first name) and has provided some evidence to support this. The order is amended to reflect this. The remainder of these reasons below remain as previously written in my order dated 6 May 2024.
Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The Tribunal must hear an application for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 21 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $1,210.

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 claims $280 for cleaning. The landlord had limited number of close-up photographs in particular the photographs shown showed kitchen drawers and cabinets were not reasonably clean. The oven was also not reasonably clean as was a wall in a bedroom.
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. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. By way of example, the landlord provided a photograph of additional cleaning that had to be done to the toilet. I have not taken this into account because the landlord said that the staining shown was after the toilet seat had been removed. I do not consider that a tenant has to remove a toilet seat to clean upon vacating a property.
Based on the evidence presented I find that the property was not left reasonably clean but there was insufficient evidence to support the extent of the cleaning claim. Based on the evidence provided I award the landlord $200 in relation to cleaning costs which is the sum I consider to be reasonable. Rubbish disposal
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises tidy as they left a significant amount of rubbish behind. It was primarily left in the garage and throughout the garden including under a deck. The landlord gathered the rubbish themselves and took it to the refuse station. The landlord undertook the work themselves. The landlords have done this by raising their own business invoices.
Photographs of the rubbish was provided including a photograph of the rubbish on the trailer after collection ready to be taken to the refuse site. The landlord says that a lot of the rubbish was time consuming to gather as it was under a deck and was smaller in nature (being cans, bottles, toys, plastic and clothing). The landlord claims $80.50 ($70 plus GST – 2 hours) for the taking of the rubbish to the refuse site in their trailer and $140 for the gathering of the items (4 hours). The landlord also claims the refuse disposal cost of $22 (gas bottle) and $132.53 for the trailer of items. The total claimed therefore for rubbish disposal is $375.03.
I do not consider that it would take two hours to load and take the trailer of rubbish from the tenancy address to the refuse station. I consider one hour to be reasonable in respect of this. I consider the reminder of the sums claimed reasonable on the basis of the evidence presented and therefore order $334.78 in relation to rubbish removal. Garden
The landlord claims that the garden was not left reasonably tidy. The landlord says that the garden had to be tidied with a weed eater and weeding had to be done. This work was done by one of the landlords with her partner and an invoice raised. No claim is made in relation to the cost of disposing of the green waste as the landlord did not have to take this to the refuse station but disposed of it elsewhere.
The landlord had a photograph of some of the debris collected around the garden in a pile, garden waste on a trailer, A small area that required weed eating/weeding and two patches of grass by the house.
The landlord has proven that the patches of grass pictured, and the area of weeds pictured meant the garden was not left reasonably clean and tidy. I award the landlord $35 as compensation to in relation to returning these areas to a reasonably tidy condition which I consider to be a reasonable sum given the size of the areas and the nature of the work.
However, in the absence of further probative evidence to support the oral evidence, I am unable to assess whether the other parts of the garden were left reasonably tidy, the nature of the work required and if established if the hours claimed are reasonable. The award is therefore limited to $35. Keys
The landlord claims $227.70 for keys given to the tenant that the landlord says were not returned. An invoice for rekeying the doors has been provided for this sum. The provision of keys is recorded in the tenancy agreement and the landlord says the tenant had one set of keys for the front, back and garage doors.
The landlord says the tenant stopped communicating with them after the tenancy apart from several text messages sent shortly after she moved out about not being able to return to the property for a walk through. I accept that the tenant did not return the keys. The sum ordered is proven. Damage
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.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan should be taken into account. Holes and painting
The landlord claims compensation for damage for a hole in the wall of bedroom 3, 2 holes in the wall of bedroom 4, a hole behind the laundry door and for many holes in the door to bedroom 4. These claims were supported by photographs and the ingoing property inspection report. I accept that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord did the work themselves and have raised business invoices one of the landlord’s filled the holes ($120.75) while the other did the preparation work and then did the painting ($175).
I accept that the cost to fill the holes is reasonable and award $120.75 in respect of this.
I decline to make a further award in respect of this damage. The tenant has been a tenant for over 10 years. The landlord’s say the paint work was 15 years old and required a paint given the length of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of painted walls in a rental property is between 5-14.4 years. I find that once depreciation is taking to account no award should be made for the paint work. Insurance excess
The landlord claims an insurance excess of $550 for water damage in the kitchen.
They say this was discovered when the tenant moved out. There was very limited photographic evidence of the damage itself. The landlord says there was a leak which caused water damage to a cabinet and kickboards. The damage was discovered when the tenant vacated the property.
The landlord undertook the work themselves at a cost of $632.50 and provided a business invoice for this work. The sum awarded by the insurer by way of a cash settlement was $950. An email from the insurer provided recorded the claim as being hidden gradual damage.
I dismiss this claim for compensation in respect of this damage. The evidence presented was not sufficiently clear as to why the tenant was responsible for damage caused by a leak that is said by the insurer to have been hidden and gradual.
Causation refers to the direct relationship between the actions of a party (the tenant) and the resulting harm or damage. Causation considers whether the tenant’s actions (or failure to act) were the cause-in-fact of the landlord’s harm (the damage). A "but-for" test is commonly used to determine causation. Causation in this context focuses on establishing a direct link between the conduct of the tenant and the harm suffered by the landlord. Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that the tenant (or anyone in the property with her permission) was the cause of the damage claimed to make her responsible.
This part of the application is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because Ian James Law, Vanessa Henley has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4790938 — Rent arrears at 11 Blagdon Road, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4790938 — Rent arrears at 11 Blagdon Road, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions