What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911755?

The tribunal order states: Christopher Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $187.54

How much money was awarded in case 4911755?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Fix Hole: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911755?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10923009-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911755?

The tribunal order states: Christopher Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $187.54

How much money was awarded in case 4911755?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Fix Hole: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911755?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10923009-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

57A Glenpark Avenue, Frankleigh Park, New Plymouth Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911755 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911755 — net $187.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Fix hole	$47.54	Repairs: Fix hole
Net award	$187.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$187.54

Order

Christopher Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $187.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord provided an outgoing property inspection report. I accept that this showed areas of the property that required additional cleaning in particular, around the old fire surround, windowsill, bath and toilet and the wiping of the front of kitchen cupboards, walls also were shown to be heavily scuffed in places. The tenant did not deny that there was additional cleaning to be done but says that he wasn’t given a chance to return to the property after he had returned the keys. Overall, I find the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. A tenant does not have to be afforded additional opportunity to clean after the tenancy has ended.
However, I consider the sum claimed is not reasonable given the evidence of the extent of the work required and the size of the property. 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. However, that is a decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have awarded the landlord $100 for all cleaning which I consider to be reasonable in all the circumstances. Rubbish disposal
The tenancy ended on 1 April and the landlord arranged for end of tenancy inspection photographs that were taken on 9 April.
The tenant left behind a window blind and a duvet inner. This is not disputed. The tenant says the blind was forgotten about as it was left behind a door (as shown in the photograph) and the duvet inner had been in the hot water cupboard.
The landlord says the tenant also left a wooden structure like a table outside on the porch but this was disputed by the tenant who says he had a cane couch on the porch, but that couch had been thrown into a big bin/skip he had. The tenant says he had problems with his neighbours during the tenancy. He said he thought that the neighbours may have put it there.
The landlord says that the council waste bins also had rubbish in them. There was no evidence to support the extent of this, but the tenant said he was told by the landlord he could leave rubbish in them.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the wooden table is the tenants. The photographs were taken some time after the tenancy ended. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven the extent of any waste in the bins or why, in any event, the landlord could not have mitigated its loss by placing the bins for collection on the street.
The landlord is entitled to the rubbish disposal cost for the blind and the duvet. I consider $40 be reasonable.

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 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.
The landlord has proved in evidence that during the tenancy the walls in the living room were damaged. There is a hole in one place and a dent in another. It is more than fair wear and tear. Having considered the evidence I find that the holes were likely caused carelessly. The tenant is therefore responsible for the repair costs.
The cost sought is $47.54. I consider this to be reasonable, there is no insurance and I accept the evidence that this is below the s49B cap.
I have not taken onto account betterment and depreciation. While a 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 I do not consider that plaster patching a wall amounts to betterment. Suppression
The tenant applied for name suppression. I have not awarded this as he has not been wholly or substantially successful (s 95A, RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911755 — net $187.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Fix hole	$47.54	Repairs: Fix hole
Net award	$187.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$187.54

Order

Christopher Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $187.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone. The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord provided an outgoing property inspection report. I accept that this showed areas of the property that required additional cleaning in particular, around the old fire surround, windowsill, bath and toilet and the wiping of the front of kitchen cupboards, walls also were shown to be heavily scuffed in places. The tenant did not deny that there was additional cleaning to be done but says that he wasn’t given a chance to return to the property after he had returned the keys. Overall, I find the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. A tenant does not have to be afforded additional opportunity to clean after the tenancy has ended.
However, I consider the sum claimed is not reasonable given the evidence of the extent of the work required and the size of the property. 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. However, that is a decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have awarded the landlord $100 for all cleaning which I consider to be reasonable in all the circumstances. Rubbish disposal
The tenancy ended on 1 April and the landlord arranged for end of tenancy inspection photographs that were taken on 9 April.
The tenant left behind a window blind and a duvet inner. This is not disputed. The tenant says the blind was forgotten about as it was left behind a door (as shown in the photograph) and the duvet inner had been in the hot water cupboard.
The landlord says the tenant also left a wooden structure like a table outside on the porch but this was disputed by the tenant who says he had a cane couch on the porch, but that couch had been thrown into a big bin/skip he had. The tenant says he had problems with his neighbours during the tenancy. He said he thought that the neighbours may have put it there.
The landlord says that the council waste bins also had rubbish in them. There was no evidence to support the extent of this, but the tenant said he was told by the landlord he could leave rubbish in them.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the wooden table is the tenants. The photographs were taken some time after the tenancy ended. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven the extent of any waste in the bins or why, in any event, the landlord could not have mitigated its loss by placing the bins for collection on the street.
The landlord is entitled to the rubbish disposal cost for the blind and the duvet. I consider $40 be reasonable.

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 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.
The landlord has proved in evidence that during the tenancy the walls in the living room were damaged. There is a hole in one place and a dent in another. It is more than fair wear and tear. Having considered the evidence I find that the holes were likely caused carelessly. The tenant is therefore responsible for the repair costs.
The cost sought is $47.54. I consider this to be reasonable, there is no insurance and I accept the evidence that this is below the s49B cap.
I have not taken onto account betterment and depreciation. While a 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 I do not consider that plaster patching a wall amounts to betterment. Suppression
The tenant applied for name suppression. I have not awarded this as he has not been wholly or substantially successful (s 95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911755 — Cleanliness at 57A Glenpark Avenue, Frankleigh Park, New Plymouth

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911755 — Cleanliness at 57A Glenpark Avenue, Frankleigh Park, New Plymouth

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions