What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5096569?

The tribunal order states: Kaitaro Muro and Ekaterina Muro to pay 360 Property Management Ltd As

How much money was awarded in case 5096569?

Cleaning: $425.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11480176-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5096569?

The tribunal order states: Kaitaro Muro and Ekaterina Muro to pay 360 Property Management Ltd As

How much money was awarded in case 5096569?

Cleaning: $425.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11480176-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 204, 401 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096569 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096569 — net $567.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$425.50	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$115.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$567.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$567.50

Order

Kaitaro Muro and Ekaterina Muro to pay 360 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Matt And Annie Wheeler $567.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre shall pay the Landlord $567.50 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord reported there were several areas requiring attention. In Bedroom 1, there were finger marks on all walls, mould on the window sill and blinds, and fly dirt on the ceiling. The kitchen had greasy splash marks, an oven that was not cleaned, dirty shelving, and greasy marks on the cabinetry. The fridge area was also not cleaned, and the dishwasher bottom had dirt and food remnants. The waste disposal unit had stains, and the Venetian blinds were dirty. In the lounge, there was fly dirt on the ceiling, dust on the vent, and finger marks on the light switches. The laundry had finger marks on the light switches, washing powder scattered around the machine, and dirt under and beside the washing machine. The bathroom had marks and scum on the glass shower, washing cloths left behind, mould in the ensuite grouting, and an unclean shower door. The vent in the bathroom was dirty, and the bedroom carpet had a stain, with finger marks on the light switch and mould and dust on the Venetian blinds. Overall, the property required significant cleaning, with issues ranging from mould and dirty surfaces to unclean appliances and leftover items.
The Landlord provided the exit inspection report and an invoice to substantiate the costs.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s claims, stating that they left the property in a reasonably clean condition and expect their bond back. They acknowledged that they should have updated photos to support their claim but believed the property was cleaned to a reasonable standard. They maintained the property well during their stay and noted they always received their bond back in the past, adhering to national standards.
The Tenants recalled in the past, they only one previous incident where they were asked to return and clean something, but they never received such a request this time. They believed the landlord is seeking to keep money from the bond out of greed. During the 3-month inspection, the landlord seemed satisfied and friendly, and they were told the property was 100% clean. They would have appreciated a chance to address any minor cleaning spots instead of receiving a bill.
The tenants also point out that certain issues, like mould or stains, were likely present before they moved in, as the property was still undergoing construction. They argue that the amount claimed is an excessive charge for cleaning, estimating it would be the equivalent of 20 hours of work.
In considering the evidence, I find from the landlords photographs that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed from the Landlord was also reasonable given the cleaning that was required.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The Landlord claimed compensation of $115.00 to repair a hole in the wall in Bedroom 1 which was discovered at the end of the tenancy. They provided a photograph and an invoice for the repair.
The tenants submit the hole was caused by an accident, not intentional damage. They explain that there was no stopper on the door, and their daughter accidentally caused the hole. They did not notice the damage until they were cleaning the property to move out. The tenants submitted that this type of wear and tear is normal in a rental property, especially with children, and that they have paid rent and left the property reasonably clean. They also submitted that if a stopper had been installed, the hole would not have happened, and they would have taken responsibility for any damage if asked.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenants agreed to pay this repair previously if the Landlord agreed to release the bond.
In considering the evidence, the photograph of the damage and invoice provided by the Landlord indicate the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I accept the Tenants previously accepted responsibility for the damage by seeking to pay for it if the bond was released. The Tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As 360 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Matt And Annie Wheeler has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression is not granted to the Tenant as they have not been successful. The Landlord has not requested name suppression so this has not been granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096569 — net $567.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$425.50	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$115.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$567.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$567.50

Order

Kaitaro Muro and Ekaterina Muro to pay 360 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Matt And Annie Wheeler $567.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre shall pay the Landlord $567.50 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord reported there were several areas requiring attention. In Bedroom 1, there were finger marks on all walls, mould on the window sill and blinds, and fly dirt on the ceiling. The kitchen had greasy splash marks, an oven that was not cleaned, dirty shelving, and greasy marks on the cabinetry. The fridge area was also not cleaned, and the dishwasher bottom had dirt and food remnants. The waste disposal unit had stains, and the Venetian blinds were dirty. In the lounge, there was fly dirt on the ceiling, dust on the vent, and finger marks on the light switches. The laundry had finger marks on the light switches, washing powder scattered around the machine, and dirt under and beside the washing machine. The bathroom had marks and scum on the glass shower, washing cloths left behind, mould in the ensuite grouting, and an unclean shower door. The vent in the bathroom was dirty, and the bedroom carpet had a stain, with finger marks on the light switch and mould and dust on the Venetian blinds. Overall, the property required significant cleaning, with issues ranging from mould and dirty surfaces to unclean appliances and leftover items.
The Landlord provided the exit inspection report and an invoice to substantiate the costs.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s claims, stating that they left the property in a reasonably clean condition and expect their bond back. They acknowledged that they should have updated photos to support their claim but believed the property was cleaned to a reasonable standard. They maintained the property well during their stay and noted they always received their bond back in the past, adhering to national standards.
The Tenants recalled in the past, they only one previous incident where they were asked to return and clean something, but they never received such a request this time. They believed the landlord is seeking to keep money from the bond out of greed. During the 3-month inspection, the landlord seemed satisfied and friendly, and they were told the property was 100% clean. They would have appreciated a chance to address any minor cleaning spots instead of receiving a bill.
The tenants also point out that certain issues, like mould or stains, were likely present before they moved in, as the property was still undergoing construction. They argue that the amount claimed is an excessive charge for cleaning, estimating it would be the equivalent of 20 hours of work.
In considering the evidence, I find from the landlords photographs that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed from the Landlord was also reasonable given the cleaning that was required.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The Landlord claimed compensation of $115.00 to repair a hole in the wall in Bedroom 1 which was discovered at the end of the tenancy. They provided a photograph and an invoice for the repair.
The tenants submit the hole was caused by an accident, not intentional damage. They explain that there was no stopper on the door, and their daughter accidentally caused the hole. They did not notice the damage until they were cleaning the property to move out. The tenants submitted that this type of wear and tear is normal in a rental property, especially with children, and that they have paid rent and left the property reasonably clean. They also submitted that if a stopper had been installed, the hole would not have happened, and they would have taken responsibility for any damage if asked.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenants agreed to pay this repair previously if the Landlord agreed to release the bond.
In considering the evidence, the photograph of the damage and invoice provided by the Landlord indicate the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I accept the Tenants previously accepted responsibility for the damage by seeking to pay for it if the bond was released. The Tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As 360 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Matt And Annie Wheeler has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression is not granted to the Tenant as they have not been successful. The Landlord has not requested name suppression so this has not been granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096569 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 204, 401 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096569 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 204, 401 New North Road, Kingsland, Auckland

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions