What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5003590?

The tribunal order states: Shahriar Khan and Sadia Islam to pay John Tahere and Louise Tahere

How much money was awarded in case 5003590?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.40 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Soap Dispenser: $15.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003590?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11188163-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5003590?

The tribunal order states: Shahriar Khan and Sadia Islam to pay John Tahere and Louise Tahere

How much money was awarded in case 5003590?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.40 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Soap Dispenser: $15.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003590?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11188163-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8A Powell Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5003590 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5003590 — net $353.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$177.40	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Soap dispenser	$15.95	Replace furnishings: Soap dispenser
Cleaning: Curtains	$60.00	Cleaning: Curtains
Net award	$353.35
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$353.35

Order

Shahriar Khan and Sadia Islam to pay John Tahere and Louise Tahere $353.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (5455411-002) immediately apportioned as follows: John Tahere and Louise Tahere: $353.35 Shahriar Khan and Sadia Islam: $1,326.65
The above award includes the items of compensation agreed during mediation held 8 November 2024.
The remainder of the landlord’s claims which were the subject of the hearing held 4 December 2024 are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 December 2024.
Following a mediation held on 8 November 2024, the parties had reached agreement on some items the tenant would compensate the landlord for.
The landlord has additional claims for compensation, which the tenant did not agree to, and those additional claims were referred to a Tribunal hearing.
The landlord’s additional claims are for compensation for damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 3 July 2021 and ended on 25 June 2024.
The tenants rented a one-bedroom self-contained unit which was located in the lower level of the landlord’s two-storey home which they occupied.
The tenants’ one-bedroom unit was entirely self-contained and had a separate entrance. There were no shared facilities.

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.
During mediation, the parties agreed the tenant was liable for some cleaning costs, specifically $100.00 for carpet cleaning and $60.00 for cleaning the curtains. I make those orders accordingly.
The parties also agreed that the tenant was liable for the replacement of a lock at a cost of $177.40 and soap dispenser for which the landlord was to be reimbursed $15.95. I make those orders accordingly.
The landlord sought a further $200 for general cleaning of the unit. The claim for $200 for general cleaning was disputed by the tenants.
In support of the claim, Ms Tahere stated she spent four hours cleaning the unit, including the oven, rangehood and benchtop. The landlord produced a photo taken on 29 June 2024 and submitted it demonstrated the rangehood had not been cleaned properly. The landlord also produced photos of the kitchen hobs and submitted they showed the hobs had not been cleaned.
The tenants deny liability for general cleaning and say they spent the day cleaning the unit on 24 June 2024. The tenant produced photos of the kitchen on the same day.
In considering this claim I am conscious that a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate. The standard of cleanliness is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy.”
I am not satisfied the landlord has demonstrated it is more likely than not that the tenant failed to leave the unit in a state that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy.” I accept the tenant’s photos show the kitchen area was left reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. I accept, as the landlord submits, that it was not immaculate, nor to the standard the landlords would like it kept, but that is not the standard which I must apply.
I dismiss the claim for $200 for general cleaning.

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 claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen cabinetry swelling due to moisture/water damage; b. Drop-leaf table damaged from food grime; c. Kitchen powerpoint required repair due to moisture damage; d. Bathroom light broken; e. Structural post in the living room scuffed and marked; f. Bathroom vanity swelling due to moisture/water damage; g. Laundry sliding doors marked; and h. Bedroom powerpoints (x2) blocked by debris or items.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities.
For each of the damage claims, the landlord failed to produce sufficient evidence in support of the claim. The landlords did not produce any evidence to prove the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy. Without such evidence, I was unable to ascertain what damage, if any, was caused by this tenant during the tenancy.
The landlord also confirmed they had not made an insurance claim in respect of any of the alleged damage. Furthermore, the landlords did not have proof of actual costs incurred to remedy the alleged damage. The landlords confirmed they completed some of the work themselves (plastering and painting the structural post) for which they provided an estimate of their time and estimated cost of materials. For some work completed by professionals they did not produce an invoice as evidence. For example, they confirmed the electrician who repaired the powerpoints completed work for them without issuing them with an invoice.
For some of the damage claimed, if it had been proven to have occurred during the tenancy, I would have found the damage was fair wear and tear. I consider the alleged damage to the drop-leaf table, which appeared to be minimal damage at the edges of the hinged area, would be fair wear and tear.
The landlords’ claims for damage to the premises are not proven and are dismissed.

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the filing fee?

As the landlords have not succeeded in their claim they are not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5003590 — net $353.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$177.40	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Soap dispenser	$15.95	Replace furnishings: Soap dispenser
Cleaning: Curtains	$60.00	Cleaning: Curtains
Net award	$353.35
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$353.35

Order

Shahriar Khan and Sadia Islam to pay John Tahere and Louise Tahere $353.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (5455411-002) immediately apportioned as follows: John Tahere and Louise Tahere: $353.35 Shahriar Khan and Sadia Islam: $1,326.65
The above award includes the items of compensation agreed during mediation held 8 November 2024.
The remainder of the landlord’s claims which were the subject of the hearing held 4 December 2024 are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 December 2024.
Following a mediation held on 8 November 2024, the parties had reached agreement on some items the tenant would compensate the landlord for.
The landlord has additional claims for compensation, which the tenant did not agree to, and those additional claims were referred to a Tribunal hearing.
The landlord’s additional claims are for compensation for damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 3 July 2021 and ended on 25 June 2024.
The tenants rented a one-bedroom self-contained unit which was located in the lower level of the landlord’s two-storey home which they occupied.
The tenants’ one-bedroom unit was entirely self-contained and had a separate entrance. There were no shared facilities.

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.
During mediation, the parties agreed the tenant was liable for some cleaning costs, specifically $100.00 for carpet cleaning and $60.00 for cleaning the curtains. I make those orders accordingly.
The parties also agreed that the tenant was liable for the replacement of a lock at a cost of $177.40 and soap dispenser for which the landlord was to be reimbursed $15.95. I make those orders accordingly.
The landlord sought a further $200 for general cleaning of the unit. The claim for $200 for general cleaning was disputed by the tenants.
In support of the claim, Ms Tahere stated she spent four hours cleaning the unit, including the oven, rangehood and benchtop. The landlord produced a photo taken on 29 June 2024 and submitted it demonstrated the rangehood had not been cleaned properly. The landlord also produced photos of the kitchen hobs and submitted they showed the hobs had not been cleaned.
The tenants deny liability for general cleaning and say they spent the day cleaning the unit on 24 June 2024. The tenant produced photos of the kitchen on the same day.
In considering this claim I am conscious that a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate. The standard of cleanliness is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy.”
I am not satisfied the landlord has demonstrated it is more likely than not that the tenant failed to leave the unit in a state that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy.” I accept the tenant’s photos show the kitchen area was left reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. I accept, as the landlord submits, that it was not immaculate, nor to the standard the landlords would like it kept, but that is not the standard which I must apply.
I dismiss the claim for $200 for general cleaning.

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 claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen cabinetry swelling due to moisture/water damage; b. Drop-leaf table damaged from food grime; c. Kitchen powerpoint required repair due to moisture damage; d. Bathroom light broken; e. Structural post in the living room scuffed and marked; f. Bathroom vanity swelling due to moisture/water damage; g. Laundry sliding doors marked; and h. Bedroom powerpoints (x2) blocked by debris or items.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities.
For each of the damage claims, the landlord failed to produce sufficient evidence in support of the claim. The landlords did not produce any evidence to prove the condition of the items at the start of the tenancy. Without such evidence, I was unable to ascertain what damage, if any, was caused by this tenant during the tenancy.
The landlord also confirmed they had not made an insurance claim in respect of any of the alleged damage. Furthermore, the landlords did not have proof of actual costs incurred to remedy the alleged damage. The landlords confirmed they completed some of the work themselves (plastering and painting the structural post) for which they provided an estimate of their time and estimated cost of materials. For some work completed by professionals they did not produce an invoice as evidence. For example, they confirmed the electrician who repaired the powerpoints completed work for them without issuing them with an invoice.
For some of the damage claimed, if it had been proven to have occurred during the tenancy, I would have found the damage was fair wear and tear. I consider the alleged damage to the drop-leaf table, which appeared to be minimal damage at the edges of the hinged area, would be fair wear and tear.
The landlords’ claims for damage to the premises are not proven and are dismissed.

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the filing fee?

As the landlords have not succeeded in their claim they are not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003590 — Property damage at 8A Powell Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003590 — Property damage at 8A Powell Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord be reimbursed for the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions