What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080030?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Amu and Kelly Angulo Angulo are to pay Team Group Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5080030?

Cleaning: $300.38 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080030?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11177160-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080030?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Amu and Kelly Angulo Angulo are to pay Team Group Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5080030?

Cleaning: $300.38 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080030?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11177160-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Kings Drive, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080030 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080030 — net $520.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$300.38	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: drycleaning curtains	$220.00	Cleaning: drycleaning curtains
Net award	$520.38
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$520.38

Order

Jonathan Amu and Kelly Angulo Angulo are to pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Tim Alexander And Jo-Anne Lundon $520.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (3416929-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Tim Alexander And Jo-Anne Lundon: $520.38 Jonathan Amu and Kelly Angulo Angulo: $1,399.62

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction
In considering the landlord’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85 RTA provides useful guidance as to how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for cleaning the carpet and drycleaning the curtains.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 that because the tenant did not adequately air the property, an extensive mould issue developed that required the landlord to treat and repaint the walls, ceilings and windows sills in the lounge, laundry and bedrooms. The landlord explained that it advised the tenant that they needed to air the rooms properly and combat mould by wiping down regularly. The landlord gave evidence that she did not see the windows opened on any inspection.
The tenant advised that she opened the windows for limited periods due to having a newborn baby and that she regularly wiped down the surfaces. The mould continued to reappear.
The landlord’s photographic evidence showed paint flaking from windowsills and mould on a number of walls and ceilings. The landlord could not provide evidence of the age of the painting on the walls and ceiling of the property, nor did the landlord provide photographic evidence of the windowsills, walls or ceilings at the start of the tenancy. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal cannot determine how much these surfaces deteriorated during the tenancy and whether the state of these surfaces was caused by the tenant’s actions or inaction.
This tenancy lasted one year and three months. It is difficult to accept on the limited evidence before the Tribunal that the property deteriorated so significantly during this short period that much of the interior required repainting. It is possible that the tenant’s actions may have exacerbated or accelerated the deterioration of the paintwork, which was already old, but there is insufficient evidence to show that on the balance of probabilities the tenant was the sole or even the principal cause of the need for repainting.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities on the evidence before it that the deterioration was not due to fair wear and tear or was caused by the tenant’s actions or inaction. The work undertaken has undoubtedly put the landlord’s property in a significantly better condition than it was in at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for the costs of painting is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for compensation for lost rent because the landlord was not able to rent out the property while repairs were completed.
The landlord is in the business of renting out residential accommodation. It is to be expected in operating that business that there will be periods when no rent is earned. It is also part of the risks that the landlord assumes in operating that business that there will be delays in having contractors carry out work. This is not a risk that it is reasonable for a tenant to assume, unless the delay has been caused by egregious behaviour on the part of the tenant, such as deliberately smashing up the property or contaminating it with methamphetamine above the Gluckman report levels.
As noted above, the landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the repainting work. It follows that the landlord’s claim for rent compensation is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080030 — net $520.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$300.38	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: drycleaning curtains	$220.00	Cleaning: drycleaning curtains
Net award	$520.38
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$520.38

Order

Jonathan Amu and Kelly Angulo Angulo are to pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Tim Alexander And Jo-Anne Lundon $520.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (3416929-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Tim Alexander And Jo-Anne Lundon: $520.38 Jonathan Amu and Kelly Angulo Angulo: $1,399.62

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction
In considering the landlord’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85 RTA provides useful guidance as to how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for cleaning the carpet and drycleaning the curtains.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 that because the tenant did not adequately air the property, an extensive mould issue developed that required the landlord to treat and repaint the walls, ceilings and windows sills in the lounge, laundry and bedrooms. The landlord explained that it advised the tenant that they needed to air the rooms properly and combat mould by wiping down regularly. The landlord gave evidence that she did not see the windows opened on any inspection.
The tenant advised that she opened the windows for limited periods due to having a newborn baby and that she regularly wiped down the surfaces. The mould continued to reappear.
The landlord’s photographic evidence showed paint flaking from windowsills and mould on a number of walls and ceilings. The landlord could not provide evidence of the age of the painting on the walls and ceiling of the property, nor did the landlord provide photographic evidence of the windowsills, walls or ceilings at the start of the tenancy. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal cannot determine how much these surfaces deteriorated during the tenancy and whether the state of these surfaces was caused by the tenant’s actions or inaction.
This tenancy lasted one year and three months. It is difficult to accept on the limited evidence before the Tribunal that the property deteriorated so significantly during this short period that much of the interior required repainting. It is possible that the tenant’s actions may have exacerbated or accelerated the deterioration of the paintwork, which was already old, but there is insufficient evidence to show that on the balance of probabilities the tenant was the sole or even the principal cause of the need for repainting.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities on the evidence before it that the deterioration was not due to fair wear and tear or was caused by the tenant’s actions or inaction. The work undertaken has undoubtedly put the landlord’s property in a significantly better condition than it was in at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for the costs of painting is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for compensation for lost rent because the landlord was not able to rent out the property while repairs were completed.
The landlord is in the business of renting out residential accommodation. It is to be expected in operating that business that there will be periods when no rent is earned. It is also part of the risks that the landlord assumes in operating that business that there will be delays in having contractors carry out work. This is not a risk that it is reasonable for a tenant to assume, unless the delay has been caused by egregious behaviour on the part of the tenant, such as deliberately smashing up the property or contaminating it with methamphetamine above the Gluckman report levels.
As noted above, the landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the repainting work. It follows that the landlord’s claim for rent compensation is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080030 — Cleanliness at 28 Kings Drive, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080030 — Cleanliness at 28 Kings Drive, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions