What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847100?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Morris to pay Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For George And

How much money was awarded in case 4847100?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $265.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,602.86 awarded to landlord; Painting: $427.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847100?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10564217-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847100?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Morris to pay Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For George And

How much money was awarded in case 4847100?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $265.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,602.86 awarded to landlord; Painting: $427.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847100?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10564217-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 South Street, Feilding, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847100 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

7 South Street, Feilding, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847100 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847100 — net $2,640.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,602.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$345.00	13. There are discrepancies between the evidence.
Repairs	$265.00	Repairs
Repairs: painting	$427.14	Repairs: painting
Net award	$2,640.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,640.00

Claims and awards for application 4847100 — net $2,640.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,602.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 13. There are discrepancies between the evidence.

Repairs

Amount: $265.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Repairs: painting

Amount: $427.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting

Net award

Landlord $2,640.00

Bond

Landlord $2,640.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,640.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Rachel Morris to pay Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For George And Alexis Rodley $2,640.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (3227566-007) to Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For George And Alexis Rodley immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,602.86 Cleaning$345.00 Repairs$265.00 Repairs: painting$427.14 Total award$2,640.00 Bond$2,640.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was notified of the hearing date and time.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant had indicated at the previous hearing that it disputed the landlord’s rent statement. The Order made on 20 May 2024 required the tenant to file a rent summary in support of her claim. No such information has been received by the Tribunal.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling (for example, rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house).
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord gave evidence that while the tenant had taken steps to clean the property there were areas not adequately cleaned: the oven, light shades, windowsills, the kitchen cupboards, the floor in the kitchen was sticky and required repeated cleaning and there were numerous marks on the walls.
The tenant provided evidence that she paid her sister to clean the property and her sister provided some photographic evidence of the state of the property.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant vacated the property two weeks prior to the end of the tenancy. This is the date on which the property must be left reasonably clean and tidy, not the date on which the tenant vacated the property.
There are discrepancies between the evidence. The landlord’s photographs are numerous and, in some relevant cases, detailed. The landlord has satisfied the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean. The amount claimed by the landlord is not for a complete clean of the property, only for cleaning the areas which required attention. The amount claimed is reasonable for the work carried out and is proven.

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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole in a door. b. The frame of the door in the lounge was split. c. A hole in a bedroom wall which required some finishing work and painting. d. Multiple scuff damage throughout the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts claimed are modest and each are less than the limits referred to in paragraph 15 and so it is not necessary to determine whether the damage was careless or intentional.
The landlord explained that the property had been freshly painted at the start of the tenancy and that while the damage to the paint was throughout the property, it was only claiming to repair the worst damage in the hallway. The landlord reduced the amount claimed for repainting so that its total claim was limited to the bond so that no further amount would be payable by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847100 — net $2,640.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,602.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$345.00	13. There are discrepancies between the evidence.
Repairs	$265.00	Repairs
Repairs: painting	$427.14	Repairs: painting
Net award	$2,640.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,640.00

Claims and awards for application 4847100 — net $2,640.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,602.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 13. There are discrepancies between the evidence.

Repairs

Amount: $265.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Repairs: painting

Amount: $427.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting

Net award

Landlord $2,640.00

Bond

Landlord $2,640.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,640.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Rachel Morris to pay Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For George And Alexis Rodley $2,640.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (3227566-007) to Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For George And Alexis Rodley immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,602.86 Cleaning$345.00 Repairs$265.00 Repairs: painting$427.14 Total award$2,640.00 Bond$2,640.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was notified of the hearing date and time.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant had indicated at the previous hearing that it disputed the landlord’s rent statement. The Order made on 20 May 2024 required the tenant to file a rent summary in support of her claim. No such information has been received by the Tribunal.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling (for example, rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house).
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord gave evidence that while the tenant had taken steps to clean the property there were areas not adequately cleaned: the oven, light shades, windowsills, the kitchen cupboards, the floor in the kitchen was sticky and required repeated cleaning and there were numerous marks on the walls.
The tenant provided evidence that she paid her sister to clean the property and her sister provided some photographic evidence of the state of the property.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant vacated the property two weeks prior to the end of the tenancy. This is the date on which the property must be left reasonably clean and tidy, not the date on which the tenant vacated the property.
There are discrepancies between the evidence. The landlord’s photographs are numerous and, in some relevant cases, detailed. The landlord has satisfied the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean. The amount claimed by the landlord is not for a complete clean of the property, only for cleaning the areas which required attention. The amount claimed is reasonable for the work carried out and is proven.

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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole in a door. b. The frame of the door in the lounge was split. c. A hole in a bedroom wall which required some finishing work and painting. d. Multiple scuff damage throughout the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts claimed are modest and each are less than the limits referred to in paragraph 15 and so it is not necessary to determine whether the damage was careless or intentional.
The landlord explained that the property had been freshly painted at the start of the tenancy and that while the damage to the paint was throughout the property, it was only claiming to repair the worst damage in the hallway. The landlord reduced the amount claimed for repainting so that its total claim was limited to the bond so that no further amount would be payable by the tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847100 — Rent arrears at 7 South Street, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847100 — Rent arrears at 7 South Street, Feilding, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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