What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4939220?

The tribunal order states: Sara Tuoro and Tepaki Tuoro must pay Uno Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4939220?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.75 awarded to landlord; Air Conditioning Unit: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door Lock: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Window Latches: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Power Point: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $897.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939220?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11026536-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4939220?

The tribunal order states: Sara Tuoro and Tepaki Tuoro must pay Uno Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4939220?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.75 awarded to landlord; Air Conditioning Unit: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door Lock: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Window Latches: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Power Point: $23.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $897.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939220?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11026536-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Carbery Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939220 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939220 — net $3,355.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$897.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$34.50	Pest control
Replace carpet	$1,080.00	Replace carpet
Repairs: Window latches	$92.00	Repairs: Window latches
Replace broken power point	$23.00	Replace broken power point
Repairs: Repair toilet roll holder	$23.00	Repairs: Repair toilet roll holder
Repairs: Air conditioning unit	$23.00	Repairs: Air conditioning unit
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$350.75	Window repairs
Repairs: Bedroom door lock	$34.50	Repairs: Bedroom door lock
Net award	$3,355.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,355.25

Order

Sara Tuoro and Tepaki Tuoro must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Isabella Jin $3,355.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
Ms Tuoro appeared by phone on behalf of both tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 24 April 2023 and ended 12 May 2024. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

RUBBISH REMOVAL AND CLEANING

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 RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a pre tenancy and post tenancy inspection report with photographs and invoices to support their claim.
Rubbish removal, advanced carpet cleaning and general cleaning was required.
The tenant submitted that she had been unable to removal all her rubbish in the one skip bin she organised, and she had done very little cleaning. She consented to orders being made in respect of rubbish removal and cleaning.
For rubbish removal I award the full amount claimed of $897.00
For general cleaning I award $575.00. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be re- tenanted.
For carpet cleaning I award the full amount claimed of $195.50.
The landlord claimed the cost to flea bomb the premise. This was itemised with the amount to install a new bedroom door lock. The amount invoiced for these services was $69.00. I award half of the claim $34.50 for the flea bombing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

DAMAGE

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. Carpet replacement
The landlord sought compensation for the carpet being damaged.
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord sought $1,200.00 to replace the carpet. The landlord’s insurance excess was $1,000.00.
The landlord had the carpets cleaned however the subsequent tenants complained about the persistent smell of pet urine in the premises. The tenant accepted that the carpet was damaged by pet urine beyond repair and that they would need replacing. I consider this was intentional damage as the tenant did not take steps to ensure her pets did not urinate on the carpet. The tenant consented to an order being made for the full amount of the carpet replacement. The landlord provided an invoice and pre and post tenancy inspection reports in support of the claim.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I have I have allowed for betterment and depreciation (10%) and ordered $1,080.00. The amount ordered is proved. Glass window by main door
The glass window next to the main door was damaged. The landlord seeks compensation on the basis this was intentional damage.
The tenant advised the damage was caused by a family member who had mental health issues and did not have permission to be at the property.
While the tenant is only responsible for damage caused by a person permitted by the tenant to be at the property, the tenant did not explain what steps she had taken to ensure of family member did not attend at the property.
I therefore make an order for the amount claimed for the repair of $350.75. Ranch slider, garage and main entrance door locks
The ranch slider door, garage door lock and main entrance door locks were broken. The landlord withdrew these claims at the hearing. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Window latches
Two window latches were broken. The landlord seeks reimbursement of $103.50 for the two new window latches to be installed.
The tenant accepted that the window latch in the bathroom was broken (possibly through the careless action of the other tenant) and consented to an order being made in respect of the dining room window latch which was bent.
However, the landlord did not advise the age of the window latches and I consider the dining room latch appeared aged so allowing for some fair wear and tear I make an order for $92.00. “Small various claims” itemised in invoice.
The landlord sought $92.00 four further itemised services.
In determining these claims, I treat each as being an individual claim for $23.00. a. the fridge power point was damaged and needed to be replaced. It had been damaged completely and while neither the tenant or the landlord could provide an explanation for how the damage occurred, I find it is beyond fair wear and tear and it more likely to have been through a careless action of the tenant or a person permitted to be on the property by the tenant. I make an order for $23.00. b. the mounted toilet role holder which had snapped off. The landlord was able to show the difference between this carelessly damaged toilet role holder and the other toilet role holder which required repair as a result of fair wear and tear. I make an order for $23.00. c. the loose toilet door lock. I do not make an order in respect of the replacement of the toilet doorknob that was loose as I consider the doorknob most likely was loose through fair wear and tear. d. a broken air conditioning unit duct cover – the landlord did not have a photograph of the back of the air conditioning unit at the commencement of the tenancy but the tenant accepted this damage occurred during the tenancy while neither the tenant or the landlord could provide an explanation for how the damage occurred I find it is beyond fair wear and tear and was likely damaged by the careless action of the tenant or a person permitted to be on the property by the tenant. I make an order for $23.00. Bedroom door lock
The bedroom door lock was damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the careless action of tenants or someone the tenants permitted to be at the premises and the tenants did not disprove liability for this damage. I make in order for the repair cost of the bedroom door lock of $34.50.

FILING FEE

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

SUPPRESSION

Neither party sought name suppression. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939220 — net $3,355.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$897.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$34.50	Pest control
Replace carpet	$1,080.00	Replace carpet
Repairs: Window latches	$92.00	Repairs: Window latches
Replace broken power point	$23.00	Replace broken power point
Repairs: Repair toilet roll holder	$23.00	Repairs: Repair toilet roll holder
Repairs: Air conditioning unit	$23.00	Repairs: Air conditioning unit
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$350.75	Window repairs
Repairs: Bedroom door lock	$34.50	Repairs: Bedroom door lock
Net award	$3,355.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,355.25

Order

Sara Tuoro and Tepaki Tuoro must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Isabella Jin $3,355.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
Ms Tuoro appeared by phone on behalf of both tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 24 April 2023 and ended 12 May 2024. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

RUBBISH REMOVAL AND CLEANING

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 RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a pre tenancy and post tenancy inspection report with photographs and invoices to support their claim.
Rubbish removal, advanced carpet cleaning and general cleaning was required.
The tenant submitted that she had been unable to removal all her rubbish in the one skip bin she organised, and she had done very little cleaning. She consented to orders being made in respect of rubbish removal and cleaning.
For rubbish removal I award the full amount claimed of $897.00
For general cleaning I award $575.00. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be re- tenanted.
For carpet cleaning I award the full amount claimed of $195.50.
The landlord claimed the cost to flea bomb the premise. This was itemised with the amount to install a new bedroom door lock. The amount invoiced for these services was $69.00. I award half of the claim $34.50 for the flea bombing.
The amounts ordered are proved.

DAMAGE

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. Carpet replacement
The landlord sought compensation for the carpet being damaged.
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord sought $1,200.00 to replace the carpet. The landlord’s insurance excess was $1,000.00.
The landlord had the carpets cleaned however the subsequent tenants complained about the persistent smell of pet urine in the premises. The tenant accepted that the carpet was damaged by pet urine beyond repair and that they would need replacing. I consider this was intentional damage as the tenant did not take steps to ensure her pets did not urinate on the carpet. The tenant consented to an order being made for the full amount of the carpet replacement. The landlord provided an invoice and pre and post tenancy inspection reports in support of the claim.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I have I have allowed for betterment and depreciation (10%) and ordered $1,080.00. The amount ordered is proved. Glass window by main door
The glass window next to the main door was damaged. The landlord seeks compensation on the basis this was intentional damage.
The tenant advised the damage was caused by a family member who had mental health issues and did not have permission to be at the property.
While the tenant is only responsible for damage caused by a person permitted by the tenant to be at the property, the tenant did not explain what steps she had taken to ensure of family member did not attend at the property.
I therefore make an order for the amount claimed for the repair of $350.75. Ranch slider, garage and main entrance door locks
The ranch slider door, garage door lock and main entrance door locks were broken. The landlord withdrew these claims at the hearing. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Window latches
Two window latches were broken. The landlord seeks reimbursement of $103.50 for the two new window latches to be installed.
The tenant accepted that the window latch in the bathroom was broken (possibly through the careless action of the other tenant) and consented to an order being made in respect of the dining room window latch which was bent.
However, the landlord did not advise the age of the window latches and I consider the dining room latch appeared aged so allowing for some fair wear and tear I make an order for $92.00. “Small various claims” itemised in invoice.
The landlord sought $92.00 four further itemised services.
In determining these claims, I treat each as being an individual claim for $23.00. a. the fridge power point was damaged and needed to be replaced. It had been damaged completely and while neither the tenant or the landlord could provide an explanation for how the damage occurred, I find it is beyond fair wear and tear and it more likely to have been through a careless action of the tenant or a person permitted to be on the property by the tenant. I make an order for $23.00. b. the mounted toilet role holder which had snapped off. The landlord was able to show the difference between this carelessly damaged toilet role holder and the other toilet role holder which required repair as a result of fair wear and tear. I make an order for $23.00. c. the loose toilet door lock. I do not make an order in respect of the replacement of the toilet doorknob that was loose as I consider the doorknob most likely was loose through fair wear and tear. d. a broken air conditioning unit duct cover – the landlord did not have a photograph of the back of the air conditioning unit at the commencement of the tenancy but the tenant accepted this damage occurred during the tenancy while neither the tenant or the landlord could provide an explanation for how the damage occurred I find it is beyond fair wear and tear and was likely damaged by the careless action of the tenant or a person permitted to be on the property by the tenant. I make an order for $23.00. Bedroom door lock
The bedroom door lock was damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the careless action of tenants or someone the tenants permitted to be at the premises and the tenants did not disprove liability for this damage. I make in order for the repair cost of the bedroom door lock of $34.50.

FILING FEE

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

SUPPRESSION

Neither party sought name suppression. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939220 — Cleanliness at 6 Carbery Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939220 — Cleanliness at 6 Carbery Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RUBBISH REMOVAL AND CLEANING

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

DAMAGE

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RUBBISH REMOVAL AND CLEANING

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

DAMAGE

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions