What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911040?

The tribunal order states: Matthew James Goggin must pay Primeproperty Group Limited $345.44

How much money was awarded in case 4911040?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Credit For Figurine: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fridge Rental - By Consent: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Lockout Charges – By Consent: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $885.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911040?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10683874-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911040?

The tribunal order states: Matthew James Goggin must pay Primeproperty Group Limited $345.44

How much money was awarded in case 4911040?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Credit For Figurine: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fridge Rental - By Consent: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Lockout Charges – By Consent: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $885.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911040?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10683874-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 420, 124 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, St Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911040 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911040 — net $345.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 May 2024	$885.00		Rent arrears to 9 May 2024
Lockout charges – by consent	$100.00		Lockout charges – by consent
Fridge rental - by consent	$90.00		Fridge rental - by consent
Cleaning: includes carpet clean	$290.00		Cleaning: includes carpet clean
Carpet repair - by consent	$140.00		Carpet repair - by consent
Replacement bed base and mattress	$50.00		Replacement bed base and mattress
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded		$1,180.00	Bond refunded
Compensation: credit for figurine		$50.00	credit for figurine
Total award	$1,575.44	$1,230.00
Net award	$345.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$345.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant submitted that the $885 showing on the rent ledger as paid on 23 May 2024 was in fact a payment by MSD and he does not owe rent. The landlord submitted the payment was taken from the bond which was refunded to the landlord on 23 May 2024. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. I find the tenant owed $885 at the end of the tenancy.

Does the tenant owe other boarding house charges?

The tenant agreed to pay for the outstanding fridge hire charges in the amount of $90.

The landlord claimed there were 9 lockout charges at $50 each that the tenant had accrued during the tenancy. The landlord said the cost is a standard charge for access when tenants are locked out. The building is staffed during the day, so it seems unlikely to me there is an actual cost of $50 for a staff member to leave the desk and open up a room. The landlord does not issue an invoice for each lockout charge so there is no information as to whether any of the lockouts were at night (when a staff member has to be called out to open a room). The tenant submitted that some of the lockouts were at night and he agreed to pay for two. In the absence of better evidence from the landlord I allow $100 for the lockout charges by consent.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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.

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 scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The landlord provided me with photos taken when the tenant moved out of his room. The tenant submitted that the room was in a poor condition when he moved in, but he did not have any photos from that time at the hearing today. It seems unlikely to me that the landlord could have rented the room in the condition shown in the exit photos. I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and the claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairing the carpet under the bed and for a replacement bed and mattress. 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 me with photos and I accept there was damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant agreed he caused damage to the carpet and the bed during the tenancy. The tenant submitted he had a medical condition at the time which meant that he was not responsible for the damage. Even if there was a medical condition, I find the tenant should have taken preventative steps to protect the bed and the carpet. Allowing a situation to occur where damage is a certainty meets the definition for intentional damage as established in Guo v Korck.

I find the cost of the carpet repair is reasonable and I allow this claim.

The landlord has claimed for a replacement bed. Betterment and depreciation have to be considered. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations and should not be better or worse off. The starting point for calculating depreciation is the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy. This cannot be established because the bed was second hand and there is no proof of purchase. The claim for a replacement bed is mostly dismissed. I have allowed $50 as a token because I have no doubt the bed was in worse condition at the end of the tenancy and allow a contribution towards the cost of removing it.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911040 — net $345.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 May 2024	$885.00		Rent arrears to 9 May 2024
Lockout charges – by consent	$100.00		Lockout charges – by consent
Fridge rental - by consent	$90.00		Fridge rental - by consent
Cleaning: includes carpet clean	$290.00		Cleaning: includes carpet clean
Carpet repair - by consent	$140.00		Carpet repair - by consent
Replacement bed base and mattress	$50.00		Replacement bed base and mattress
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded		$1,180.00	Bond refunded
Compensation: credit for figurine		$50.00	credit for figurine
Total award	$1,575.44	$1,230.00
Net award	$345.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$345.44

Order

Matthew James Goggin must pay Primeproperty Group Limited $345.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant submitted that the $885 showing on the rent ledger as paid on 23 May 2024 was in fact a payment by MSD and he does not owe rent. The landlord submitted the payment was taken from the bond which was refunded to the landlord on 23 May 2024. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. I find the tenant owed $885 at the end of the tenancy.

Does the tenant owe other boarding house charges?

The tenant agreed to pay for the outstanding fridge hire charges in the amount of $90.
The landlord claimed there were 9 lockout charges at $50 each that the tenant had accrued during the tenancy. The landlord said the cost is a standard charge for access when tenants are locked out. The building is staffed during the day, so it seems unlikely to me there is an actual cost of $50 for a staff member to leave the desk and open up a room. The landlord does not issue an invoice for each lockout charge so there is no information as to whether any of the lockouts were at night (when a staff member has to be called out to open a room). The tenant submitted that some of the lockouts were at night and he agreed to pay for two. In the absence of better evidence from the landlord I allow $100 for the lockout charges by consent.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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.
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 scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided me with photos taken when the tenant moved out of his room. The tenant submitted that the room was in a poor condition when he moved in, but he did not have any photos from that time at the hearing today. It seems unlikely to me that the landlord could have rented the room in the condition shown in the exit photos. I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and the claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairing the carpet under the bed and for a replacement bed and mattress. 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 me with photos and I accept there was damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant agreed he caused damage to the carpet and the bed during the tenancy. The tenant submitted he had a medical condition at the time which meant that he was not responsible for the damage. Even if there was a medical condition, I find the tenant should have taken preventative steps to protect the bed and the carpet. Allowing a situation to occur where damage is a certainty meets the definition for intentional damage as established in Guo v Korck.
I find the cost of the carpet repair is reasonable and I allow this claim.
The landlord has claimed for a replacement bed. Betterment and depreciation have to be considered. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations and should not be better or worse off. The starting point for calculating depreciation is the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy. This cannot be established because the bed was second hand and there is no proof of purchase. The claim for a replacement bed is mostly dismissed. I have allowed $50 as a token because I have no doubt the bed was in worse condition at the end of the tenancy and allow a contribution towards the cost of removing it.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911040 — Rent arrears at Room 420, 124 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, St

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911040 — Rent arrears at Room 420, 124 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, St

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Does the tenant owe other boarding house charges?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Does the tenant owe other boarding house charges?

Did the tenant comply with his 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