What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4798879?

The tribunal order states: RPMC Trustees Limited must pay Domenika Francheska Freire Lopez $241.94

How much money was awarded in case 4798879?

Compensation: Bedding/Linen Charge: $44.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4798879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4798879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10614665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4798879?

The tribunal order states: RPMC Trustees Limited must pay Domenika Francheska Freire Lopez $241.94

How much money was awarded in case 4798879?

Compensation: Bedding/Linen Charge: $44.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4798879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4798879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10614665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1F, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4798879 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4798879 — net $241.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning charge	$57.50	cleaning charge
Compensation: bedding/linen charge	$44.00	bedding/linen charge
Compensation: light bulb and fitting repair charge	$120.00	light bulb and fitting repair charge
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$241.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$241.94

Order

RPMC Trustees Limited must pay Domenika Francheska Freire Lopez $241.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Jay Rols. Two hearings were held. The first hearing was held in person, with the landlord (at the landlord’s request) attending by teleconference. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, as there was insufficient time to address all the evidence. Following this hearing, the landlord expressed concerns regarding the sound quality of the teleconference hearing. At the second hearing, both parties attended in person. The Tribunal was assisted (at both hearings) by Ms Amegual, Spanish interpreter.
As noted in the order issued following the first hearing, this tenancy began on 24 July 2023 and ended on 21 January 2024. The rent is $220.00 per week and a bond of $880.00 was paid. The bond has since been refunded, and is no longer held at the Bond Centre, with the landlord being paid $221.50 and the tenant receiving the balance of $658.50.
The tenant has applied for payment of the balance of her bond, which was paid to the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord sent her a blank bond refund form, which she signed, and the landlord completed this form and sought payment from the Bond Centre. She received a refund of $658.50, instead of the full bond of $880.00, the landlord having deducted cleaning and other costs at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant provided evidence regarding the circumstances at the beginning of the tenancy, the condition of the premises, issues that arose, and her dealings with the landlord. She seeks the remainder of the bond of $221.50 and states that she returned the premises in a better condition than it was at the start of the tenancy. Her evidence is that she returned the linen and left a replacement lightbulb, the light fitting was already broken at the start of the tenancy and the light bulb was not working.
In response, the landlord relies on clause 11 of the tenancy agreement which provides that the tenant agrees to commercially clean the premises, at the tenant’s expense, at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed the cleaning charge of $57.50. The landlord has also claimed the cost of replacing linen ($26.00 for the duvet cover and $18.00 for a coverlet), and repair of a light fitting and replacement bulb ($120.00). Cleaning
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 In general, a tenancy agreement requiring professional cleaning by the tenant at the end of the tenancy is not enforceable.
In this case, I acknowledge the landlord’s evidence, including the copy of the bond refund form, which the tenant has signed. I also note the submission that the tenant was willing to pay for the cleaning fee and had signed the tenancy agreement to this effect. However, as noted above, a requirement that the tenant professionally clean the premises at the end of the tenancy is not generally enforceable. 5 The standard under the RTA is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
I accept the tenant’s explanation that she initially agreed to the cleaning charge because she thought that was the exit fee and, at the time, did not want to “make a big deal out of it.” When charged by the landlord for other items, she disputed it. The tenant’s evidence shows the landlord specifically stated that she was not to fill in any amounts in the bond refund form. The landlord also agreed that she would only be charged for the cleaning.
I also note the tenant’s evidence that she is a professional cleaner. She has also provided photographic and documentary evidence, which, together with her oral evidence, persuades me that she left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
As the tenant has complied with her obligations under the RTA, the landlord cannot charge her for additional cleaning. Accordingly, I find the tenant is not liable for the cleaning charges and is to be compensated for the amount charged ($57.50). Linen
The tenant seeks repayment of the landlord’s charges for replacement of the duvet cover and coverlet (the linen). As noted earlier, a tenant is required to leave, in or at the premises, all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 6 A chattel is moveable property not attached to land or a building. 7
I accept, from the tenant’s detailed evidence, that the sheets belonged to the previous tenant, who let her have it, and therefore, she was entitled to remove 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Section 11 of the RTA 6 Section 40(1)(e)(v) 7 Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [77] the sheets when leaving the premises. I note that the landlord did not seek to be compensated for these items. I also accept the tenant’s explanation that she had mistakenly understood the duvet cover and coverlet belonged to the previous tenant. When she realised it was the landlord’s property, she returned it. She provided detailed photographic evidence to show that she had left the items at the reception area of the apartment complex.
In this case, the tenant had mistakenly removed the landlord’s linen, but has provided persuasive evidence, which I accept, that these missing items were subsequently returned. Therefore, the landlord cannot claim these costs from the tenant. Furthermore, the landlord had earlier indicated to the tenant that only cleaning charges were to be deducted from the bond, and yet claimed additional charges against the tenant, which were not agreed. Accordingly, I find the tenant is to be compensated for the costs incurred for replacement of the linen, which is awarded above. Light bulb replacement
In general, at the end of the tenancy, the tenant is required to replace standard light bulbs. The Tribunal has held that a tenant is liable to replace light bulbs not working at the end of the tenancy. 8 The tenant’s evidence is that she left a spare light bulb at the premises at the end of the tenancy. On the other hand, the landlord states that no light bulb was found.
The tenancy agreement requires the tenant to “replace all electric light globes (LED only) and switchboard fuses as they wear out or are broken or become unusable with other of at least the same quality and power as those at the commencement date of the tenancy.” It is arguable whether the requirement to replace with LED light bulbs and replace switchboard fuses is enforceable.
In this case, I accept that the tenant has complied with her obligations. She has produced photographic evidence of the light bulb, together with an invoice for the item. Therefore, she ought not to be charged for replacement of the light bulb. In any event, there was no agreement to the deduction of additional items from the bond. Light fitting repair
In terms of liability for damage, it must be shown that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage. 9 8 See Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by S Benson at 6.14 9 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA
In this case the tenant states she was a careful tenant and denies breaking anything. She has provided detailed evidence in support. This includes her communication with the landlord about the light fitting being faulty at the start of the tenancy, together with photographic and oral evidence.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenant is not liable for the repair of the light fitting and is to be reimbursed for the charges incurred. In making this finding, I note the landlord has not produced an invoice for the repair charge, so there is a question regarding the actual cost incurred by the landlord for the repair. While the landlord believes the tenant had caused the damage by forcing an incorrect bulb into the fitting (a bayonet bulb into a screw- type receptacle), this is denied by the tenant. Even if this had occurred, in view of the documentary and oral evidence provided by the tenant regarding the basis on which she signed the blank bond refund form, the landlord cannot unilaterally claim this additional cost against the bond. Name suppression
An application for name suppression has been made in this case by the landlord only. The tenant does not seek name suppression. As the landlord has not been successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Filing fee
As the tenant has been successful with the application, the landlord is to pay the tenant’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4798879 — net $241.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning charge	$57.50	cleaning charge
Compensation: bedding/linen charge	$44.00	bedding/linen charge
Compensation: light bulb and fitting repair charge	$120.00	light bulb and fitting repair charge
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$241.94
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$241.94

Order

RPMC Trustees Limited must pay Domenika Francheska Freire Lopez $241.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Jay Rols. Two hearings were held. The first hearing was held in person, with the landlord (at the landlord’s request) attending by teleconference. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, as there was insufficient time to address all the evidence. Following this hearing, the landlord expressed concerns regarding the sound quality of the teleconference hearing. At the second hearing, both parties attended in person. The Tribunal was assisted (at both hearings) by Ms Amegual, Spanish interpreter.
As noted in the order issued following the first hearing, this tenancy began on 24 July 2023 and ended on 21 January 2024. The rent is $220.00 per week and a bond of $880.00 was paid. The bond has since been refunded, and is no longer held at the Bond Centre, with the landlord being paid $221.50 and the tenant receiving the balance of $658.50.
The tenant has applied for payment of the balance of her bond, which was paid to the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord sent her a blank bond refund form, which she signed, and the landlord completed this form and sought payment from the Bond Centre. She received a refund of $658.50, instead of the full bond of $880.00, the landlord having deducted cleaning and other costs at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant provided evidence regarding the circumstances at the beginning of the tenancy, the condition of the premises, issues that arose, and her dealings with the landlord. She seeks the remainder of the bond of $221.50 and states that she returned the premises in a better condition than it was at the start of the tenancy. Her evidence is that she returned the linen and left a replacement lightbulb, the light fitting was already broken at the start of the tenancy and the light bulb was not working.
In response, the landlord relies on clause 11 of the tenancy agreement which provides that the tenant agrees to commercially clean the premises, at the tenant’s expense, at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed the cleaning charge of $57.50. The landlord has also claimed the cost of replacing linen ($26.00 for the duvet cover and $18.00 for a coverlet), and repair of a light fitting and replacement bulb ($120.00). Cleaning
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 In general, a tenancy agreement requiring professional cleaning by the tenant at the end of the tenancy is not enforceable.
In this case, I acknowledge the landlord’s evidence, including the copy of the bond refund form, which the tenant has signed. I also note the submission that the tenant was willing to pay for the cleaning fee and had signed the tenancy agreement to this effect. However, as noted above, a requirement that the tenant professionally clean the premises at the end of the tenancy is not generally enforceable. 5 The standard under the RTA is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
I accept the tenant’s explanation that she initially agreed to the cleaning charge because she thought that was the exit fee and, at the time, did not want to “make a big deal out of it.” When charged by the landlord for other items, she disputed it. The tenant’s evidence shows the landlord specifically stated that she was not to fill in any amounts in the bond refund form. The landlord also agreed that she would only be charged for the cleaning.
I also note the tenant’s evidence that she is a professional cleaner. She has also provided photographic and documentary evidence, which, together with her oral evidence, persuades me that she left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
As the tenant has complied with her obligations under the RTA, the landlord cannot charge her for additional cleaning. Accordingly, I find the tenant is not liable for the cleaning charges and is to be compensated for the amount charged ($57.50). Linen
The tenant seeks repayment of the landlord’s charges for replacement of the duvet cover and coverlet (the linen). As noted earlier, a tenant is required to leave, in or at the premises, all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 6 A chattel is moveable property not attached to land or a building. 7
I accept, from the tenant’s detailed evidence, that the sheets belonged to the previous tenant, who let her have it, and therefore, she was entitled to remove 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Section 11 of the RTA 6 Section 40(1)(e)(v) 7 Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [77] the sheets when leaving the premises. I note that the landlord did not seek to be compensated for these items. I also accept the tenant’s explanation that she had mistakenly understood the duvet cover and coverlet belonged to the previous tenant. When she realised it was the landlord’s property, she returned it. She provided detailed photographic evidence to show that she had left the items at the reception area of the apartment complex.
In this case, the tenant had mistakenly removed the landlord’s linen, but has provided persuasive evidence, which I accept, that these missing items were subsequently returned. Therefore, the landlord cannot claim these costs from the tenant. Furthermore, the landlord had earlier indicated to the tenant that only cleaning charges were to be deducted from the bond, and yet claimed additional charges against the tenant, which were not agreed. Accordingly, I find the tenant is to be compensated for the costs incurred for replacement of the linen, which is awarded above. Light bulb replacement
In general, at the end of the tenancy, the tenant is required to replace standard light bulbs. The Tribunal has held that a tenant is liable to replace light bulbs not working at the end of the tenancy. 8 The tenant’s evidence is that she left a spare light bulb at the premises at the end of the tenancy. On the other hand, the landlord states that no light bulb was found.
The tenancy agreement requires the tenant to “replace all electric light globes (LED only) and switchboard fuses as they wear out or are broken or become unusable with other of at least the same quality and power as those at the commencement date of the tenancy.” It is arguable whether the requirement to replace with LED light bulbs and replace switchboard fuses is enforceable.
In this case, I accept that the tenant has complied with her obligations. She has produced photographic evidence of the light bulb, together with an invoice for the item. Therefore, she ought not to be charged for replacement of the light bulb. In any event, there was no agreement to the deduction of additional items from the bond. Light fitting repair
In terms of liability for damage, it must be shown that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage. 9 8 See Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by S Benson at 6.14 9 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA
In this case the tenant states she was a careful tenant and denies breaking anything. She has provided detailed evidence in support. This includes her communication with the landlord about the light fitting being faulty at the start of the tenancy, together with photographic and oral evidence.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenant is not liable for the repair of the light fitting and is to be reimbursed for the charges incurred. In making this finding, I note the landlord has not produced an invoice for the repair charge, so there is a question regarding the actual cost incurred by the landlord for the repair. While the landlord believes the tenant had caused the damage by forcing an incorrect bulb into the fitting (a bayonet bulb into a screw- type receptacle), this is denied by the tenant. Even if this had occurred, in view of the documentary and oral evidence provided by the tenant regarding the basis on which she signed the blank bond refund form, the landlord cannot unilaterally claim this additional cost against the bond. Name suppression
An application for name suppression has been made in this case by the landlord only. The tenant does not seek name suppression. As the landlord has not been successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Filing fee
As the tenant has been successful with the application, the landlord is to pay the tenant’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4798879 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1F, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4798879 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1F, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions