What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034529?

The tribunal order states: Jacinta Palu and Folo Lauina must pay Jian Ping (Alice) Morris and Mark Inglis

How much money was awarded in case 5034529?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $384.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $3,879.00 awarded to landlord; To The Sleepouts: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $539.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $78.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,134.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11331319-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034529?

The tribunal order states: Jacinta Palu and Folo Lauina must pay Jian Ping (Alice) Morris and Mark Inglis

How much money was awarded in case 5034529?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $384.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $3,879.00 awarded to landlord; To The Sleepouts: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $539.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $78.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,134.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11331319-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

371 Cambridge Terrace, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034529 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034529 — net $5,342.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 16 September 2024	$3,879.00	Rent owed to 16 September 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: labour	$200.00	Rubbish removal: labour
Repairs: to the sleepouts	$300.00	Repairs: to the sleepouts
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$539.60	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Window repairs: 8 broken windows	$1,134.00	Window repairs: 8 broken windows
Rubbish removal: tip fees	$78.00	Rubbish removal: tip fees
Lock/key replacement: and replacement lock on 1 sleepout	$384.50	Lock/key replacement: and replacement lock on 1 sleepout
Carpet Cleaning - estimated	$800.00	Carpet Cleaning - estimated
Net award	$5,342.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,342.10

The landlord attended the hearing.

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 September 2024, at the end of the 28 day notice period. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

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 (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 took photos at the end of the tenancy. I was also provided with photos taken at the start of the tenancy and an ingoing inspection report. I find the house was not left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. Additional cleaning had to be done in the house and the sleepouts. Rubbish, including large pieces of furniture, had to be removed. The photos do not support the claim for the cost to remove rubbish buried in the garden. The amounts ordered seem fair to me, based on the evidence provided.

The tenants did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs, for replacement carpet and curtains, and for painting. The 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.

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 proved that eight windows were damaged during the tenancy and were broken at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed for repair is reasonable.

The landlord proved that the sleepouts were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The cost of repair is not specified in the invoice. I have allowed the materials and the travel and estimated an hour of labour as the cost of repair. It is likely this less than the landlord paid but the alternative is to dismiss the claim.

There is a claim for replacement carpet. The landlord submitted that the carpet, which was new at the start of this tenancy, was so stained, dirty and damaged that replacing the carpet was to only option available. The landlord did not attempt to have the carpets cleaned by a commercial cleaner, which means there is no independent assessment of the carpets available to me. I have considered the photos. Some of the carpet is very stained and dirty. There is a small amount of damage. I am not sure if I have photos of every room. I am not persuaded by the photos that replacing the carpet was the only option available. The claim for replacing the carpet is dismissed but I have allowed an estimated amount for commercial cleaning, including stain removal. This is based on similar claims I see in the Tribunal.

The claims for replacing the curtains and the nets are dismissed because the landlord has not proved the claim. The photos do not support the submission that the curtains and nets were rotten and dirty. This claim is dismissed.

There is a claim for painting. I have taken betterment and depreciation into account. 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 walls at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. It seems most likely to me that some of the walls were due for repainting anyway after the renovation at the start of 2019. This claim is dismissed.

The claim for the remote is not proved and it is dismissed.

There is insufficient evidence about the garage door repair and it is dismissed.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034529 — net $5,342.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 16 September 2024	$3,879.00	Rent owed to 16 September 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: labour	$200.00	Rubbish removal: labour
Repairs: to the sleepouts	$300.00	Repairs: to the sleepouts
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$539.60	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Window repairs: 8 broken windows	$1,134.00	Window repairs: 8 broken windows
Rubbish removal: tip fees	$78.00	Rubbish removal: tip fees
Lock/key replacement: and replacement lock on 1 sleepout	$384.50	Lock/key replacement: and replacement lock on 1 sleepout
Carpet Cleaning - estimated	$800.00	Carpet Cleaning - estimated
Net award	$5,342.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,342.10

Order

Jacinta Palu and Folo Lauina must pay Jian Ping (Alice) Morris and Mark Inglis $5,342.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3481976-012) to Jian Ping (Alice) Morris and Mark Inglis immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 September 2024, at the end of the 28 day notice period. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

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 (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 took photos at the end of the tenancy. I was also provided with photos taken at the start of the tenancy and an ingoing inspection report. I find the house was not left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. Additional cleaning had to be done in the house and the sleepouts. Rubbish, including large pieces of furniture, had to be removed. The photos do not support the claim for the cost to remove rubbish buried in the garden. The amounts ordered seem fair to me, based on the evidence provided.
The tenants did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs, for replacement carpet and curtains, and for painting. The 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.
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 proved that eight windows were damaged during the tenancy and were broken at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed for repair is reasonable.
The landlord proved that the sleepouts were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The cost of repair is not specified in the invoice. I have allowed the materials and the travel and estimated an hour of labour as the cost of repair. It is likely this less than the landlord paid but the alternative is to dismiss the claim.
There is a claim for replacement carpet. The landlord submitted that the carpet, which was new at the start of this tenancy, was so stained, dirty and damaged that replacing the carpet was to only option available. The landlord did not attempt to have the carpets cleaned by a commercial cleaner, which means there is no independent assessment of the carpets available to me. I have considered the photos. Some of the carpet is very stained and dirty. There is a small amount of damage. I am not sure if I have photos of every room. I am not persuaded by the photos that replacing the carpet was the only option available. The claim for replacing the carpet is dismissed but I have allowed an estimated amount for commercial cleaning, including stain removal. This is based on similar claims I see in the Tribunal.
The claims for replacing the curtains and the nets are dismissed because the landlord has not proved the claim. The photos do not support the submission that the curtains and nets were rotten and dirty. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for painting. I have taken betterment and depreciation into account. 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 walls at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. It seems most likely to me that some of the walls were due for repainting anyway after the renovation at the start of 2019. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the remote is not proved and it is dismissed.
There is insufficient evidence about the garage door repair and it is dismissed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034529 — Property damage at 371 Cambridge Terrace, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034529 — Property damage at 371 Cambridge Terrace, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions