What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5055048?

The tribunal order states: Jubeda Elizabeth Khan, Alzeena Elizabeth Rafiq and Alsheena Elizabeth Rafiq

How much money was awarded in case 5055048?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $20.01 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5055048?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5055048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11996482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5055048?

The tribunal order states: Jubeda Elizabeth Khan, Alzeena Elizabeth Rafiq and Alsheena Elizabeth Rafiq

How much money was awarded in case 5055048?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $20.01 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5055048?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5055048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11996482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82 Bellbird Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5055048 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5055048 — net $227.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/9/24	$20.01	Rent arrears to 22/9/24
Rubbish removal: - mat left outside	$69.00	Rubbish removal: - mat left outside
Lawns and Garden work	$46.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$92.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$227.01
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$227.01

Order

Jubeda Elizabeth Khan, Alzeena Elizabeth Rafiq and Alsheena Elizabeth Rafiq are to pay Grovefield Joal Limited Ta Rental Partners Ltd As Agent For Owner Lee Dallam $227.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (6436612-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Grovefield Joal Limited Ta Rental Partners Ltd As Agent For Owner Lee Dallam: $227.01 Jubeda Elizabeth Khan, Alzeena Elizabeth Rafiq and Alsheena Elizabeth Rafiq: $2,892.99
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants seek a refund of the Bond. 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. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $20.01 and I make an order for the full amount claimed.

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. 1
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 consider 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, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 4 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 5
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove their rubbish. The post tenancy photographs show a small number of surfaces would have needed a wipe clean, however, overall the premises was reasonably clean and tidy (and this is specifically noted in the vacate inspection report) and I accordingly decline to award cleaning costs.
The landlord had to remove rubbish and some lawn work was required. $100 +GST was claimed for lawn mowing and rubbish collection. The invoice did not itemise these two services.
The tenants disputed the amount claimed for lawn work and rubbish removal. The tenant said they largely removed their rubbish, with one mat remaining outside. The tenants also said there was uncertainty as to whether the Council would mow the area near the footpath. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 4 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 5 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
However, on the evidence provided, I am satisfied some lawn work was required within the yard and given there was some rubbish that required removal I make an order for $69.00 for rubbish removal and $46.00 for the weeding that was required within the section.
The carpet required stain removal. The amount claimed for stain removal of $92 is ordered by consent.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 6 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 7
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 8
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). 9 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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11
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. 12 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause 6 Sees 40 (2)(a) 7 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 8 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 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. 13
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damaged floor
The landlord says the laminate wooden floor was carelessly damaged during the tenancy by the tenants over wetting it while washing it. The claim is for $2,714 based on a quote to replace the flooring and $690.00 to remove the skirting to allow for the installation of the laminate flooring.
The landlord’s assessor described the damage as follows: “A localized flooring deformation has been observed in the central area of the first floor living room. The affected wooden flooring exhibits warping at its central section with visible edge breakage, covering approximately 3 square meters. The damage area has remained stable without expansion over a 4-month period. No progression in severity or deterioration has been observed. The affected zone maintains dryness with no moisture during the inspection. Current assessment indicates contained damage with no active contributing factors from any leakage from foundation or water system. The stable condition suggests the deformation likely resulted from surface water on the floor.”
The landlord’s insurance claim has been declined on the basis the policy does not cover gradual damage or wear and tear.
The tenants accept the laminate flooring has some damage but say this is a result of the overall dampness in the premises which was a persistent issue they raised during the tenancy in the colder months. The tenants provided 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. photographs of dampness on surfaces and a mould issue in the bathroom. The tenants deny using excessive water to clean the floors.
The tenants called one witness who confirmed his experience of the premises was that it was a damp house.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the result of gradual deterioration from the dampness within the home. However, if I am wrong in that finding then I consider the tenants have disproved liability in that they have proved that they have not carelessly or intentionally caused the damage. I consider it unlikely that the tenants have mopped the floor with excessive amounts of water and there is no evidence that they did so. Laminate flooring should be able to withstand normal mopping and cleaning. I consider the damage is likely to have been the result of the persistent dampness in the premises over colder months and potentially an issue with the particular laminate flooring.
The claim for replacement flooring is not proved and is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIM AND BOND
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with the outcome of this decision. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success in their claims I decline to award the filing fee to either party, as they will cancel each other out. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5055048 — net $227.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/9/24	$20.01	Rent arrears to 22/9/24
Rubbish removal: - mat left outside	$69.00	Rubbish removal: - mat left outside
Lawns and Garden work	$46.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$92.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$227.01
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$227.01

Order

Jubeda Elizabeth Khan, Alzeena Elizabeth Rafiq and Alsheena Elizabeth Rafiq are to pay Grovefield Joal Limited Ta Rental Partners Ltd As Agent For Owner Lee Dallam $227.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (6436612-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Grovefield Joal Limited Ta Rental Partners Ltd As Agent For Owner Lee Dallam: $227.01 Jubeda Elizabeth Khan, Alzeena Elizabeth Rafiq and Alsheena Elizabeth Rafiq: $2,892.99
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants seek a refund of the Bond. 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. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $20.01 and I make an order for the full amount claimed.

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. 1
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 consider 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, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 4 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 5
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove their rubbish. The post tenancy photographs show a small number of surfaces would have needed a wipe clean, however, overall the premises was reasonably clean and tidy (and this is specifically noted in the vacate inspection report) and I accordingly decline to award cleaning costs.
The landlord had to remove rubbish and some lawn work was required. $100 +GST was claimed for lawn mowing and rubbish collection. The invoice did not itemise these two services.
The tenants disputed the amount claimed for lawn work and rubbish removal. The tenant said they largely removed their rubbish, with one mat remaining outside. The tenants also said there was uncertainty as to whether the Council would mow the area near the footpath. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 4 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 5 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
However, on the evidence provided, I am satisfied some lawn work was required within the yard and given there was some rubbish that required removal I make an order for $69.00 for rubbish removal and $46.00 for the weeding that was required within the section.
The carpet required stain removal. The amount claimed for stain removal of $92 is ordered by consent.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 6 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 7
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 8
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). 9 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). 10 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11
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. 12 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause 6 Sees 40 (2)(a) 7 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 8 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 9 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 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. 13
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damaged floor
The landlord says the laminate wooden floor was carelessly damaged during the tenancy by the tenants over wetting it while washing it. The claim is for $2,714 based on a quote to replace the flooring and $690.00 to remove the skirting to allow for the installation of the laminate flooring.
The landlord’s assessor described the damage as follows: “A localized flooring deformation has been observed in the central area of the first floor living room. The affected wooden flooring exhibits warping at its central section with visible edge breakage, covering approximately 3 square meters. The damage area has remained stable without expansion over a 4-month period. No progression in severity or deterioration has been observed. The affected zone maintains dryness with no moisture during the inspection. Current assessment indicates contained damage with no active contributing factors from any leakage from foundation or water system. The stable condition suggests the deformation likely resulted from surface water on the floor.”
The landlord’s insurance claim has been declined on the basis the policy does not cover gradual damage or wear and tear.
The tenants accept the laminate flooring has some damage but say this is a result of the overall dampness in the premises which was a persistent issue they raised during the tenancy in the colder months. The tenants provided 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. photographs of dampness on surfaces and a mould issue in the bathroom. The tenants deny using excessive water to clean the floors.
The tenants called one witness who confirmed his experience of the premises was that it was a damp house.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the result of gradual deterioration from the dampness within the home. However, if I am wrong in that finding then I consider the tenants have disproved liability in that they have proved that they have not carelessly or intentionally caused the damage. I consider it unlikely that the tenants have mopped the floor with excessive amounts of water and there is no evidence that they did so. Laminate flooring should be able to withstand normal mopping and cleaning. I consider the damage is likely to have been the result of the persistent dampness in the premises over colder months and potentially an issue with the particular laminate flooring.
The claim for replacement flooring is not proved and is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIM AND BOND
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with the outcome of this decision. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success in their claims I decline to award the filing fee to either party, as they will cancel each other out. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5055048 — Cleanliness at 82 Bellbird Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5055048 — Cleanliness at 82 Bellbird Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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