What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923213?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Ruth Thompson, Saopapa Apineru, Joanne Scanlan and Toloa Apineru

How much money was awarded in case 4923213?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $774.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $192.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923213?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10955481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923213?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Ruth Thompson, Saopapa Apineru, Joanne Scanlan and Toloa Apineru

How much money was awarded in case 4923213?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $774.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $192.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923213?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10955481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

67 Black Beech Crescent, Takanini, Takanini 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4923213 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923213 — net $2,247.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$192.23	Water rates
Pest control	$260.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning and repairing vertical blinds	$774.93	Cleaning and repairing vertical blinds
Carpet Cleaning	$1,000.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$2,247.60
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,247.60

Order

Sarah Ruth Thompson, Saopapa Apineru, Joanne Scanlan and Toloa Apineru to pay Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For Gayan And Jaime Perera / Ezra Properties Ltd $2,247.60 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6438073-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For Gayan And Jaime Perera / Ezra Properties Ltd: $2,247.60 Sarah Ruth Thompson, Saopapa Apineru, $752.40 Joanne Scanlan and Toloa Apineru:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This appears to be a cross application, but the tenant’s application is solely to refute the claims made by the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 May 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $192.23 owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants accepts that they owe the water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has provided an exit inspection report, photos, and an invoice for the cost of cleaning from Auckland House Cleaners dated 13 May 2024 for $1150.90.
I have viewed the landlord’s photos and the tenants, and I do not find that the tenants left the place unclean and untidy. The photos show a house in good reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I accept that there were small areas that were not perfect, but overall, the property was cleaned to a good standard.
A landlord cannot expect the property to be perfect and spotless at the end of a tenancy. The Tribunal adopts the standard of reasonably clean and tidy, and I deem it was.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for cleaning.
The landlord claims that there were fleas in the property at the end of the tenancy and has provided an invoice for $260.00. The tenants do not oppose paying for the pest control. I am satisfied that the landlord should be granted the pest control costs.
The landlord is claiming for the cost of cleaning and repairing the vertical blinds in the property and has provided an invoice from Onsite Blind Cleaning and Repairs Limited dated 22 May 2024 for $1050.93. The invoice was for cleaning the blinds and replacing one slat and weights, plus repairs to the headrail.
The landlord has provided photos that do show some marks on the blinds and some of the bottom strings were missing or broken.
The tenants say that the vertical blind headrail was faulty from the start of the tenancy. Their view was that the blinds were too heavy for the wall that they were hung on. The tenants provided an email they sent to the landlord in the early part of their tenancy where they complained of the headrail coming away from the wall.
The inspection photos show that the headrail was sitting away from the wall. I accept the account the tenants gave about the heavy headrail and previous problems with it, which was supported by the email.
I am deducting the repairs for the headrail from the invoice but awarding the cleaning costs. I award the landlord $774.93 for the vertical blinds.

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 claims the tenants caused the following damage during the tenancy: -Dented the garage door. -Ripped the hose and tap out of the laundry basin. -Caused corrosive damage to the laundry floor under the tub. -Heavily stained and damaged the carpets throughout the house. -Broke the ensuite water latch.
The landlord made an insurance claim and received a quote for $15559.20 to replace the carpet in the master bedroom and bedrooms 2 and 3, stairwell, fix the garage door dent, remove, and replace the tub hose, rewater proof the area and retile and fix the ensuite window latch.
The landlord seeks $4500.00 in insurance excess costs for each separate claim. There were 6 claims in all.
For completeness I would not award the excess for the garage and laundry. The laundry hose and tap appear to have come loose rather than being “ripped” out by the tenant. The corrosive substances on the laundry floor under the tub is small and more likely to be as a result of water damage from the tap that was coming loose off the wall.
Furthermore, the dent in the garage door was not mentioned to the tenants during the tenancy and the tenants deny that there was damage. The landlord did not conduct the final exit inspection with the tenants as he was too busy elsewhere. The tenants say the damage could have been caused between the time that they left, and when the landlord did the inspection days later.
The carpets had a number of small spot stains. The tenants accept that and point out that they are a family living in the house with 3 small children. During the tenancy, the carpets were spot cleaned at least 4 times. The landlord said to the tenants that rather than continuing to spot clean the carpet, he was going to have them replaced at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not attempt to spot clean or shampoo the carpets at the end of the tenancy. The carpets are to be replaced. I do not see why the tenants should be responsible for the excess to replace the carpets before any attempts was made to thoroughly clean them beforehand.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for the insurance excess and awarding $1000.00 towards the cost of carpet cleaning.
The landlord claims that the window latch in the ensuite was broken off. No explanation has been given as to how this could have been wilful or deliberate damage rather than a maintenance issue or accidental damage.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the parties as set out in paragraph 2 of this order.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For Gayan And Jaime Perera / Ezra Properties Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923213 — net $2,247.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$192.23	Water rates
Pest control	$260.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning and repairing vertical blinds	$774.93	Cleaning and repairing vertical blinds
Carpet Cleaning	$1,000.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$2,247.60
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,247.60

Order

Sarah Ruth Thompson, Saopapa Apineru, Joanne Scanlan and Toloa Apineru to pay Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For Gayan And Jaime Perera / Ezra Properties Ltd $2,247.60 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6438073-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For Gayan And Jaime Perera / Ezra Properties Ltd: $2,247.60 Sarah Ruth Thompson, Saopapa Apineru, $752.40 Joanne Scanlan and Toloa Apineru:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This appears to be a cross application, but the tenant’s application is solely to refute the claims made by the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 May 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $192.23 owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants accepts that they owe the water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has provided an exit inspection report, photos, and an invoice for the cost of cleaning from Auckland House Cleaners dated 13 May 2024 for $1150.90.
I have viewed the landlord’s photos and the tenants, and I do not find that the tenants left the place unclean and untidy. The photos show a house in good reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I accept that there were small areas that were not perfect, but overall, the property was cleaned to a good standard.
A landlord cannot expect the property to be perfect and spotless at the end of a tenancy. The Tribunal adopts the standard of reasonably clean and tidy, and I deem it was.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for cleaning.
The landlord claims that there were fleas in the property at the end of the tenancy and has provided an invoice for $260.00. The tenants do not oppose paying for the pest control. I am satisfied that the landlord should be granted the pest control costs.
The landlord is claiming for the cost of cleaning and repairing the vertical blinds in the property and has provided an invoice from Onsite Blind Cleaning and Repairs Limited dated 22 May 2024 for $1050.93. The invoice was for cleaning the blinds and replacing one slat and weights, plus repairs to the headrail.
The landlord has provided photos that do show some marks on the blinds and some of the bottom strings were missing or broken.
The tenants say that the vertical blind headrail was faulty from the start of the tenancy. Their view was that the blinds were too heavy for the wall that they were hung on. The tenants provided an email they sent to the landlord in the early part of their tenancy where they complained of the headrail coming away from the wall.
The inspection photos show that the headrail was sitting away from the wall. I accept the account the tenants gave about the heavy headrail and previous problems with it, which was supported by the email.
I am deducting the repairs for the headrail from the invoice but awarding the cleaning costs. I award the landlord $774.93 for the vertical blinds.

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 claims the tenants caused the following damage during the tenancy: -Dented the garage door. -Ripped the hose and tap out of the laundry basin. -Caused corrosive damage to the laundry floor under the tub. -Heavily stained and damaged the carpets throughout the house. -Broke the ensuite water latch.
The landlord made an insurance claim and received a quote for $15559.20 to replace the carpet in the master bedroom and bedrooms 2 and 3, stairwell, fix the garage door dent, remove, and replace the tub hose, rewater proof the area and retile and fix the ensuite window latch.
The landlord seeks $4500.00 in insurance excess costs for each separate claim. There were 6 claims in all.
For completeness I would not award the excess for the garage and laundry. The laundry hose and tap appear to have come loose rather than being “ripped” out by the tenant. The corrosive substances on the laundry floor under the tub is small and more likely to be as a result of water damage from the tap that was coming loose off the wall.
Furthermore, the dent in the garage door was not mentioned to the tenants during the tenancy and the tenants deny that there was damage. The landlord did not conduct the final exit inspection with the tenants as he was too busy elsewhere. The tenants say the damage could have been caused between the time that they left, and when the landlord did the inspection days later.
The carpets had a number of small spot stains. The tenants accept that and point out that they are a family living in the house with 3 small children. During the tenancy, the carpets were spot cleaned at least 4 times. The landlord said to the tenants that rather than continuing to spot clean the carpet, he was going to have them replaced at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not attempt to spot clean or shampoo the carpets at the end of the tenancy. The carpets are to be replaced. I do not see why the tenants should be responsible for the excess to replace the carpets before any attempts was made to thoroughly clean them beforehand.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for the insurance excess and awarding $1000.00 towards the cost of carpet cleaning.
The landlord claims that the window latch in the ensuite was broken off. No explanation has been given as to how this could have been wilful or deliberate damage rather than a maintenance issue or accidental damage.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the parties as set out in paragraph 2 of this order.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For Gayan And Jaime Perera / Ezra Properties Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923213 — Cleanliness at 67 Black Beech Crescent, Takanini, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923213 — Cleanliness at 67 Black Beech Crescent, Takanini, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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 water rates?

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