What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5095709?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5095709?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Laundry Basket/Shelf: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Remotes: $56.05 awarded to landlord; Missing Sink Plugs: $87.72 awarded to landlord; Missing Towel Rail: $99.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $132.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095709?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11185983-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5095709?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5095709?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Laundry Basket/Shelf: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Missing Remotes: $56.05 awarded to landlord; Missing Sink Plugs: $87.72 awarded to landlord; Missing Towel Rail: $99.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $132.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095709?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11185983-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Timberlea, Upper Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095709 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095709 — net $1,261.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$132.35	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Missing sink plugs	$87.72	Missing sink plugs
Missing laundry basket/shelf	$100.00	Missing laundry basket/shelf
Missing remotes	$56.05	Missing remotes
Missing towel rail	$99.99	Missing towel rail
Dishwasher repair	$125.22	Dishwasher repair
Damaged shed	$250.00	Damaged shed
Damaged sprinkler	$10.00	Damaged sprinkler
Net award	$1,261.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,261.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $1,283.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings. Mr and Mrs Collins represented the landlord company. Mrs Collins is the director of the landlord company, and both are the shareholders. Mr and Mrs Collins own the tenancy premises.
The tenants had a two-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 1 December 2023. Rent was agreed at $1,250 per week (increased to $1,400 per week from 17 December 2024) and a bond of $5,000 was paid.
On 11 November 2024, the tenants applied for an order releasing them from the fixed term tenancy early. The parties subsequently agreed that the landlords would have possession of the premises with effect from 1 December 2024.
Then on 4 December 2024, the landlords applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment and a rent arrears order. On 17 December 2024, the Tribunal held that no order for termination and possession was required given the parties agreement as to possession passing to the landlords on 1 December and the claim for rent was adjourned to be heard at the same time as the tenants’ application.
Both applications came before me on 11 February. At that hearing the parties agreed to settle the claim for rent by release of the bond to the landlord. The landlords had amended their claims to include compensation and exemplary damages and those claims were adjourned to 30 April. They were further adjourned to 18 June to enable both parties to provide further evidence in support of their claims/defence.
The landlords’ claims are for exemplary damages for abandonment by the tenants and for the following costs: •Cleaning: $400.00 •Carpet cleaning: $200.00 •Rubbish removal: $132.25 •Missing sink and waste disposal plugs: $87.72 •Missing TV and soundbar remotes: $56.05 •Missing Spa towel rail: $99.99 •Damage to the spa pool: $959.20 •Damage to dishwasher: $125.22 •Damage to bedroom carpet underlay: $575.00 •Damage to shed doors: $1,200.00 (insurance excess) •Damage to laundry tub (missing basket/shelf): $1,428.92 •Damage to roller blind: $228.00 •Damage to sprinkler: $23.38 • Break lease costs: $402.50 •Tribunal filing fee: $27.00
The tenants accept the claim for the missing towel rail. They also accept they left some rubbish at the premises but dispute the amount claimed.

Did the tenants 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: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlords claim that the oven, walls and skirting boards were not left reasonably clean, and they claim the cost for employees of the landlord company to complete the cleaning work. They provided evidence to establish that the amounts claimed were paid by Mr and Mrs Collins to their company.
The obligation on a tenant in section 40(1)(e) of the Act is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a new tenant might require or a landlord might require for themselves (Mr and Mrs Collins moved into the premises sometime before 9 December). There will often be some additional cleaning and tidying work required in between tenants and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost.
I am satisfied, on the evidence before me (in particular the photographic evidence) that the tenants left the oven and the premises overall (with the exception of the carpets which I deal with further below) reasonably clean. However, I accept that some walls and skirtings may have needed additional cleaning because of odour caused by the tenants’ dog. In the circumstances I consider $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for this work.
As mentioned, the tenants do not dispute that they left some rubbish behind, but they dispute the amount claimed. They claim that they should not have pay for a site visit because Mr and Mrs Collins were living in the premises. However, I accept Mr and Mrs Collins’ evidence that the work was completed by employees of the landlord company and, as mentioned, they provided evidence that establishes that the amounts claimed were paid by Mr and Mrs Collins to their company.
The tenants accept that the remotes and sink plugs provided with the tenancy were missing at the end of the tenancy. They said that they purchased new plugs, but these did not fit the sinks and therefore could not be used. I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost to replace the remotes and plugs.
The tenants had the carpets cleaned by Jae’s twice before the tenancy ended to remove the odour caused by their dog. Mr and Mrs Collins claim that the odour was still there in a bedroom when they took possession, and they again had the carpets in that room cleaned and deodorised by Jaes. I am satisfied that the landlord has established that this third clean was required. Written comments by Jaes establish that the dog odour in that room was still present and dog hairs were still being extracted from the carpet.
I therefore find that tenants liable for the cost to clean the bedroom carpet for the third time.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. The spa pool
Mr and Mrs Collins claim that the tenants’ failed to maintain the spa pool, in particular the water quality, as instructed. They claim that this caused a build-up of calcium that caused the spa jets to fail. They claim the cost to replace the jets being $959.20.
They referred to the clause in the tenancy agreement (clause 19) which placed responsibility on the tenants to maintain the spa pool and any work required is to be at the tenants’ cost.
A tenant is not required to maintain the premises (including chattels provided for their benefit). This obligation rests with the landlord pursuant to section 45 of the Act and any clause in a tenancy agreement that places a greater obligation on a tenant than the obligations imposed by the Act is unenforceable: section 11 of the Act.
Moreover, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established to the standard required (that is on the balance of probabilities or ‘more likely than not’) that the requirement to replace the jets was due to a failure to maintain the water quality. There is no expert or independent evidence to support that poor maintenance was the cause of the failure. On the other hand, there is evidence (statement on the bottom of invoice for the supply of the jets) that states: “The expected lifespan of Spa or Hot Tub jets varies and is dependent on water care. Alpine’s 5 year warranty on jets is based on the average lifespan of jets in a well-balanced spa”. The spa was new and commissioned in March 2020 and therefore the jets were 4 years 8 months old at the end of the tenancy. Thus, given the average lifespan of jets is five years, it could well be that they failed simply due to age or normal wear and tear.
I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has established that the jets did not fail due to fair wear and tear. This claim is therefore dismissed. Dishwasher
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that damage to the dishwasher (broken clip and blocked spray arms) occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
The amount claimed has been established by the production of an invoice. The tenants again claim that they should not be liable for the site visit cost given Mr and Mrs Collins were living at the premises. However, I accept that the work was completed by employees of the landlord and Mr and Mrs Collins have paid the amount due on the invoice to the company. Bedroom carpet underlay
The landlord claims that the odour in the bedroom carpet was not removed by the cleaning and deodorising treatment completed by Jaes in December 2024 and they claim the sum of $575.00 (based on a quote) to lift the carpet and replace the underlay in that room. They relied on comments made by Jaes on 5 December after they had completed the cleaning and deodorising work where Jaes stated that it the odour was not removed the next step would be to replace the underlay, clean the floor and back of the carpet.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the issue of the dog odour still exists or is of such extent that the underlay requires replacement. Mr and Mrs Collins have been living at the premises for approximately six months and have not had the underlay replaced. They also did not provide any recent objective evidence to support their claim regarding the odour. This claim is therefore dismissed. Shed doors
The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the shed doors by leaving the doors open which caused the doors to be bent in the wind. The tenants did not dispute that the damage to the shed doors occurred during the tenancy, and I am satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants were unable to say how the damage occurred other than to say that they did not leave them open when it was windy. By not being able to say how the damage occurred the tenants have not discharged their onus to prove that the damage was not caused by their careless or deliberate actions. I therefore find them liable for the damage.
The landlord made a claim with its insurer and were paid the cost to replace the shed ($6,026.46) less the policy excess of $1,200.00, and they claim the excess amount from the tenants. The landlord has not yet replaced the shed and Mr and Mrs Collins said that it is still useable.
The purposes of damages or compensation for a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act is to restore the landlord to the same position it would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, the Tribunal is also required to consider the reasonableness of the cost claimed and proportionality to the damage or loss suffered and I am not satisfied that the shed has been so badly damaged that it requires replacement. As mentioned, the shed is still usable but I accept that the doors are damaged and there is therefore a loss of amenity as a result of the damage. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $250 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage. Laundry tub
The tenants did not dispute that the shelf and basket inside the laundry tub was missing at the end of the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Collins said that they have been unable to find a replacement, so they claim the sum of $1,428.92 (based on a quote) to replace the laundry tub.
Again, I do not consider that it is reasonable that the tenants be liable for the cost to replace the entire tub because of the missing shelf and basket inside the tub’s cupboard. It seems from the photos taken at the start of the tenancy that the shelf was simply a melamine board sitting on top of the basket runners which would in my view be easily replaced. I accept that the missing basket underneath may not be able to be replaced due to finding one that fits the cupboard, but this is simply a loss of amenity. It does not affect the use of the tub as a tub. In the circumstances I consider $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the missing shelf and basket. Roller blind
I accept the tenants’ evidence that the blind was broken when the tenants young son caught his arm in the chain during an earthquake. Thus, I am satisfied that the damage was caused accidentally and not due to any careless or deliberate actions of the tenants or others at the premises with their permission.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Sprinkler
The landlord claims that the sprinkler which was provided as part of the tenancy had melted during the tenancy and required replacement. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have been unable to say how it occurred and therefore have not discharged their onus to disprove liability.
The amount claimed to replace the sprinkler has been established. However, I have reduced the amount claimed to account for betterment or depreciation. The sprinkler was approximately one year to 18 months old at the end of the tenancy. No evidence was provided as to how long a sprinkler of that type is expected to last. Doing the best I can on the evidence I have I consider $10.00 reasonable compensation for the damage.

Are the tenants liable for the break lease costs?

The landlord claims the sum of $402.50 in costs Mr and Mrs Colins say the landlord incurred to find another tenant. They say that they attempted to find another tenant before they decided to live in the premises themselves.
This claim is dismissed because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that it did incur the costs claimed to find another tenant despite an adjournment being granted to enable them to provide such evidence.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

The landlord claims that the tenants abandoned the premises and exemplary damages ought to be payable.
However, it is clear that the tenants did not abandon the premises. They simply surrendered the tenancy to the landlords. The landlords accepted the surrender by accepting possession of the premises in early December.
This claim is therefore dismissed. The Tribunal application fee
Both parties have had partial success in their claims, and I therefore make no award for payment of the Tribunal fee paid by each. Suppression
The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been substantially successful in their defence to the claims by the landlord (the total sum claimed by the landlord was $$6,342.51). I therefore make an order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095709 — net $1,261.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$132.35	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Missing sink plugs	$87.72	Missing sink plugs
Missing laundry basket/shelf	$100.00	Missing laundry basket/shelf
Missing remotes	$56.05	Missing remotes
Missing towel rail	$99.99	Missing towel rail
Dishwasher repair	$125.22	Dishwasher repair
Damaged shed	$250.00	Damaged shed
Damaged sprinkler	$10.00	Damaged sprinkler
Net award	$1,261.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,261.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $1,283.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings. Mr and Mrs Collins represented the landlord company. Mrs Collins is the director of the landlord company, and both are the shareholders. Mr and Mrs Collins own the tenancy premises.
The tenants had a two-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 1 December 2023. Rent was agreed at $1,250 per week (increased to $1,400 per week from 17 December 2024) and a bond of $5,000 was paid.
On 11 November 2024, the tenants applied for an order releasing them from the fixed term tenancy early. The parties subsequently agreed that the landlords would have possession of the premises with effect from 1 December 2024.
Then on 4 December 2024, the landlords applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment and a rent arrears order. On 17 December 2024, the Tribunal held that no order for termination and possession was required given the parties agreement as to possession passing to the landlords on 1 December and the claim for rent was adjourned to be heard at the same time as the tenants’ application.
Both applications came before me on 11 February. At that hearing the parties agreed to settle the claim for rent by release of the bond to the landlord. The landlords had amended their claims to include compensation and exemplary damages and those claims were adjourned to 30 April. They were further adjourned to 18 June to enable both parties to provide further evidence in support of their claims/defence.
The landlords’ claims are for exemplary damages for abandonment by the tenants and for the following costs: •Cleaning: $400.00 •Carpet cleaning: $200.00 •Rubbish removal: $132.25 •Missing sink and waste disposal plugs: $87.72 •Missing TV and soundbar remotes: $56.05 •Missing Spa towel rail: $99.99 •Damage to the spa pool: $959.20 •Damage to dishwasher: $125.22 •Damage to bedroom carpet underlay: $575.00 •Damage to shed doors: $1,200.00 (insurance excess) •Damage to laundry tub (missing basket/shelf): $1,428.92 •Damage to roller blind: $228.00 •Damage to sprinkler: $23.38 • Break lease costs: $402.50 •Tribunal filing fee: $27.00
The tenants accept the claim for the missing towel rail. They also accept they left some rubbish at the premises but dispute the amount claimed.

Did the tenants 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: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlords claim that the oven, walls and skirting boards were not left reasonably clean, and they claim the cost for employees of the landlord company to complete the cleaning work. They provided evidence to establish that the amounts claimed were paid by Mr and Mrs Collins to their company.
The obligation on a tenant in section 40(1)(e) of the Act is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a new tenant might require or a landlord might require for themselves (Mr and Mrs Collins moved into the premises sometime before 9 December). There will often be some additional cleaning and tidying work required in between tenants and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost.
I am satisfied, on the evidence before me (in particular the photographic evidence) that the tenants left the oven and the premises overall (with the exception of the carpets which I deal with further below) reasonably clean. However, I accept that some walls and skirtings may have needed additional cleaning because of odour caused by the tenants’ dog. In the circumstances I consider $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for this work.
As mentioned, the tenants do not dispute that they left some rubbish behind, but they dispute the amount claimed. They claim that they should not have pay for a site visit because Mr and Mrs Collins were living in the premises. However, I accept Mr and Mrs Collins’ evidence that the work was completed by employees of the landlord company and, as mentioned, they provided evidence that establishes that the amounts claimed were paid by Mr and Mrs Collins to their company.
The tenants accept that the remotes and sink plugs provided with the tenancy were missing at the end of the tenancy. They said that they purchased new plugs, but these did not fit the sinks and therefore could not be used. I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost to replace the remotes and plugs.
The tenants had the carpets cleaned by Jae’s twice before the tenancy ended to remove the odour caused by their dog. Mr and Mrs Collins claim that the odour was still there in a bedroom when they took possession, and they again had the carpets in that room cleaned and deodorised by Jaes. I am satisfied that the landlord has established that this third clean was required. Written comments by Jaes establish that the dog odour in that room was still present and dog hairs were still being extracted from the carpet.
I therefore find that tenants liable for the cost to clean the bedroom carpet for the third time.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. The spa pool
Mr and Mrs Collins claim that the tenants’ failed to maintain the spa pool, in particular the water quality, as instructed. They claim that this caused a build-up of calcium that caused the spa jets to fail. They claim the cost to replace the jets being $959.20.
They referred to the clause in the tenancy agreement (clause 19) which placed responsibility on the tenants to maintain the spa pool and any work required is to be at the tenants’ cost.
A tenant is not required to maintain the premises (including chattels provided for their benefit). This obligation rests with the landlord pursuant to section 45 of the Act and any clause in a tenancy agreement that places a greater obligation on a tenant than the obligations imposed by the Act is unenforceable: section 11 of the Act.
Moreover, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established to the standard required (that is on the balance of probabilities or ‘more likely than not’) that the requirement to replace the jets was due to a failure to maintain the water quality. There is no expert or independent evidence to support that poor maintenance was the cause of the failure. On the other hand, there is evidence (statement on the bottom of invoice for the supply of the jets) that states: “The expected lifespan of Spa or Hot Tub jets varies and is dependent on water care. Alpine’s 5 year warranty on jets is based on the average lifespan of jets in a well-balanced spa”. The spa was new and commissioned in March 2020 and therefore the jets were 4 years 8 months old at the end of the tenancy. Thus, given the average lifespan of jets is five years, it could well be that they failed simply due to age or normal wear and tear.
I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has established that the jets did not fail due to fair wear and tear. This claim is therefore dismissed. Dishwasher
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that damage to the dishwasher (broken clip and blocked spray arms) occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
The amount claimed has been established by the production of an invoice. The tenants again claim that they should not be liable for the site visit cost given Mr and Mrs Collins were living at the premises. However, I accept that the work was completed by employees of the landlord and Mr and Mrs Collins have paid the amount due on the invoice to the company. Bedroom carpet underlay
The landlord claims that the odour in the bedroom carpet was not removed by the cleaning and deodorising treatment completed by Jaes in December 2024 and they claim the sum of $575.00 (based on a quote) to lift the carpet and replace the underlay in that room. They relied on comments made by Jaes on 5 December after they had completed the cleaning and deodorising work where Jaes stated that it the odour was not removed the next step would be to replace the underlay, clean the floor and back of the carpet.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the issue of the dog odour still exists or is of such extent that the underlay requires replacement. Mr and Mrs Collins have been living at the premises for approximately six months and have not had the underlay replaced. They also did not provide any recent objective evidence to support their claim regarding the odour. This claim is therefore dismissed. Shed doors
The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the shed doors by leaving the doors open which caused the doors to be bent in the wind. The tenants did not dispute that the damage to the shed doors occurred during the tenancy, and I am satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants were unable to say how the damage occurred other than to say that they did not leave them open when it was windy. By not being able to say how the damage occurred the tenants have not discharged their onus to prove that the damage was not caused by their careless or deliberate actions. I therefore find them liable for the damage.
The landlord made a claim with its insurer and were paid the cost to replace the shed ($6,026.46) less the policy excess of $1,200.00, and they claim the excess amount from the tenants. The landlord has not yet replaced the shed and Mr and Mrs Collins said that it is still useable.
The purposes of damages or compensation for a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act is to restore the landlord to the same position it would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, the Tribunal is also required to consider the reasonableness of the cost claimed and proportionality to the damage or loss suffered and I am not satisfied that the shed has been so badly damaged that it requires replacement. As mentioned, the shed is still usable but I accept that the doors are damaged and there is therefore a loss of amenity as a result of the damage. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $250 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage. Laundry tub
The tenants did not dispute that the shelf and basket inside the laundry tub was missing at the end of the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Collins said that they have been unable to find a replacement, so they claim the sum of $1,428.92 (based on a quote) to replace the laundry tub.
Again, I do not consider that it is reasonable that the tenants be liable for the cost to replace the entire tub because of the missing shelf and basket inside the tub’s cupboard. It seems from the photos taken at the start of the tenancy that the shelf was simply a melamine board sitting on top of the basket runners which would in my view be easily replaced. I accept that the missing basket underneath may not be able to be replaced due to finding one that fits the cupboard, but this is simply a loss of amenity. It does not affect the use of the tub as a tub. In the circumstances I consider $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the missing shelf and basket. Roller blind
I accept the tenants’ evidence that the blind was broken when the tenants young son caught his arm in the chain during an earthquake. Thus, I am satisfied that the damage was caused accidentally and not due to any careless or deliberate actions of the tenants or others at the premises with their permission.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Sprinkler
The landlord claims that the sprinkler which was provided as part of the tenancy had melted during the tenancy and required replacement. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have been unable to say how it occurred and therefore have not discharged their onus to disprove liability.
The amount claimed to replace the sprinkler has been established. However, I have reduced the amount claimed to account for betterment or depreciation. The sprinkler was approximately one year to 18 months old at the end of the tenancy. No evidence was provided as to how long a sprinkler of that type is expected to last. Doing the best I can on the evidence I have I consider $10.00 reasonable compensation for the damage.

Are the tenants liable for the break lease costs?

The landlord claims the sum of $402.50 in costs Mr and Mrs Colins say the landlord incurred to find another tenant. They say that they attempted to find another tenant before they decided to live in the premises themselves.
This claim is dismissed because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that it did incur the costs claimed to find another tenant despite an adjournment being granted to enable them to provide such evidence.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

The landlord claims that the tenants abandoned the premises and exemplary damages ought to be payable.
However, it is clear that the tenants did not abandon the premises. They simply surrendered the tenancy to the landlords. The landlords accepted the surrender by accepting possession of the premises in early December.
This claim is therefore dismissed. The Tribunal application fee
Both parties have had partial success in their claims, and I therefore make no award for payment of the Tribunal fee paid by each. Suppression
The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been substantially successful in their defence to the claims by the landlord (the total sum claimed by the landlord was $$6,342.51). I therefore make an order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095709 — Cleanliness in Timberlea, Upper Hutt

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095709 — Cleanliness in Timberlea, Upper Hutt

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants liable for the break lease costs?

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants liable for the break lease costs?

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions