What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5102072?

The tribunal order states: Logan O'Connell and Sean O’Connell must pay Max Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5102072?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Fence: $100.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $532.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5102072?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5102072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11676003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5102072?

The tribunal order states: Logan O'Connell and Sean O’Connell must pay Max Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5102072?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Fence: $100.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $532.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5102072?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5102072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11676003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5102072 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5102072 — net $1,469.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$532.45	Rubbish removal
Carpet insurance excess less deduction	$450.00	Carpet insurance excess less deduction
Repairs: Fence	$100.05	Repairs: Fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,469.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,469.50

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 3 April 2025.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. Those calls went through to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.

The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement shows that a guarantee has been given of the tenant’s performance. The guarantor attended the hearing. For ease of reference, I propose referring to that person as the guarantor throughout the course of this decision .

The tenancy commenced on 7 April 2024. A previous application in relation to this tenancy was heard by the Tribunal and an order issued on 8 November 2024. The Tribunal ordered the termination of the tenancy on 10 November 2024, payment of rent, reimbursement of the filing fee and release of the bond. Landlord’s claims

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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 standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).

The landlord provided an invoice from the cleaner for $440.00. The owner sought compensation for a lesser sum of $360.00, for 9 hours cleaning. The landlord said that the reduced claim was solely for work required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord said that the tenant had frequently worked on cars and as a result there were many stains and marks from oil smudges on the walls. The cleaner referred to the smudges looking like car oil. The cleaner indicated that it took a lot of wiping to remove these stains. The kitchen cleaning included cleaning the oven. The landlord provided photos of the premises taken prior to the commencement of the tenancy and photos taken at the end of the tenancy.

No evidence was provided by the guarantor in relation to the cleaning, other than to state that the invoice seemed expensive.

In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The photos provided satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the amount of cleaning required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard equated to the invoiced amount.

The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal. The landlord provided an invoice for $532.45. This was broken down into $230.00 for labour and $302.45 for dump fees. The landlord provided photos of the items that needed to be removed. The landlord said that the large rubbish bins on site had been cross contaminated by the tenant meaning that the local council would no longer remove them.

The guarantor asked if the some of the rubbish had been able to be recycled. The landlord said that some of the tyres were able to be recycled at no costs but not those that retained the tyre rims. Gas bottles had been removed and recycled. The claim is proven and the amount of the invoice is reasonable.

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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00 on each and every claim.

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 carpet was damaged. The landlord provided photos showing burn marks and stains in the carpet. The landlord said that the carpet had been new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of the carpet at $713.00. The landlord seeks compensation in the sum of $500.00. which is the insurance excess on this claim. The damage is more than fear wear and tear and liability for the damage has not disproved.

The damaged carpet has been dumped by the landlord. The guarantor said that the damaged carpet would have had some residual value, it having been new at the commencement of the tenancy. I accept the guarantor’s proposition. No evidence was provided as to the possible residual value of the damaged carpet, however, I accept that it would have had some limited value. I reduce the landlord’s claim by $50.00 to take into account the residual value of the damaged carpet. The tenant is to pay $450.00.

A fence was damaged. The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant had admitted damaging the fence. An invoice and photos of the fence were provided in evidence in support of the landlord’s claim. The damage is more than fear wear and tear and liability for the damage has not been disproved.

The amounts ordered are proved. Guarantee.

The tenancy agreement provides that in consideration of the landlord granting the tenancy to the tenant, the guarantor agreed to guarantee performance of all covenants and payment of all monies relating to the tenancy.

In the previous application to the Tribunal in relation to this tenancy dated 8 November 2024, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay rent arrears and current rent to 10 November 2024 of $5,278.57, with the filing fee of $27.00. The bond was released to the landlord, leaving a net sum payable to the landlord of $3,105.57.

The guarantor subsequently agreed to pay $3,078.57 to the landlord. That sum is the net balance owing under the Tribunal’s 8 November 2024 order, less the filing fee of $27.00.

The guarantor asked the landlord to provide a tax invoice with a specific narration in the invoice. The narration was “property services rendered. Full and final payment”. The landlord provided an invoice to the guarantor in that precise form.

The guarantor says that the wording of the tax invoice amounts to an accord and satisfaction of all debts in relation to the tenancy of the tenant and that this amounts to a full defence to any liability under the terms of the guarantee under these proceedings.

An accord and satisfaction is the purchase of a release from an obligation, whether arising under contract or tort, by means of any valuable consideration, not being the actual performance of the obligation itself. The accord is the agreement by which the obligation is discharged. The satisfaction is the consideration which makes the agreement operative.

Where the facts suggest a strong desire from the parties to put an end to a dispute, this may suggest that an accord and satisfaction is intended, particularly if the agreement is described as being in “full and final settlement.”

Here the matter is not as clear. The narration states essentially that the payment is full and final payment for property services rendered. There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the accord to accept payment of the debt, less the filing fee for the monies owing under the first order, might also encapsulate any future, at that time undetermined claim. A statement in the order of “the payment made by the debtor is in full and final settlement of all claims between the debtor and the creditor in respect of the property at Mac Worth Street” may have resulted in the guarantor’s desired effect. The wording in the invoice did not state that or anything that could be considered similar. The Tribunal is therefore not required to decide that issue. I am satisfied that the wording in the invoice did not amount to an accord and satisfaction of any future dispute between the parties, but only of the matters contained in TT 5013509.

Having found that there was an accord and satisfaction in regard to the previous order, the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee ordered in TT 5013509 is dismissed.

As Max Property Management (Mpm) Limited As Agent For Stephanie Montel & Holly Cater has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Neither party appearing before the Tribunal applied for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5102072 — net $1,469.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$532.45	Rubbish removal
Carpet insurance excess less deduction	$450.00	Carpet insurance excess less deduction
Repairs: Fence	$100.05	Repairs: Fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,469.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,469.50

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 3 April 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

No evidence was provided by the guarantor in relation to the cleaning, other than to state that the invoice seemed expensive.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

The amounts ordered are proved. Guarantee.

The guarantor subsequently agreed to pay $3,078.57 to the landlord. That sum is the net balance owing under the Tribunal’s 8 November 2024 order, less the filing fee of $27.00.

Having found that there was an accord and satisfaction in regard to the previous order, the landlord’s application for reimbursement of the filing fee ordered in TT 5013509 is dismissed.

As Max Property Management (Mpm) Limited As Agent For Stephanie Montel & Holly Cater has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Neither party appearing before the Tribunal applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5102072 — Property damage at 76 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5102072 — Property damage at 76 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions