What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5112850?

The tribunal order states: BillieGene Wikitoria Pirini must pay The Rent House Limited acting agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5112850?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cladding: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Window, Walls And Deck: $1,490.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $174.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5112850?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5112850?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11580784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5112850?

The tribunal order states: BillieGene Wikitoria Pirini must pay The Rent House Limited acting agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5112850?

Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cladding: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Window, Walls And Deck: $1,490.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $174.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5112850?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5112850?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11580784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 4 Etherton Drive, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5112850 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5112850 — net $2,966.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$174.01	Water rates
Cleaning	$900.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Window, walls and deck	$1,490.50	Repairs: Window, walls and deck
Repairs: Cladding	$375.00	Repairs: Cladding
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	andlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. 14 Name suppression
Net award	$2,966.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,966.51

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the bond has been refunded to the landlord to cover the rent arrears. Service

If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— (a) personally; or (b) by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (c) by delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there; or (d) by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive service on his or her behalf. 1

Service of the application in accordance with the RTA has not occurred.

If a notice or other document that is required to be served on a party is not served in accordance with the RTA and the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice or other document on the party in accordance with the RTA, the Tribunal may make directions in relation to substituted or dispensing with service. 2

No new email or physical address for service was provided by the tenant to the landlord. In addition, the application was approximately a month over the two- month time frame for which service may be by email. This is not a long period of time. The tenant was emailed with a copy of the application and the notice of hearing. I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made to serve the tenant in accordance with the RTA. I direct that the application and notice of hearing may be treated as being served.

The tenant may file an application for a re-hearing if she wants to dispute the findings in this order. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenant. 1 Section 91A (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 91 B of the RTA

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 September 2024.

The landlord provided water rates invoices and a statement which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was 174.01.

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. 3

If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.

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, particular with paint work).

Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7 The landlord should expect to bear responsibility for some of the cleaning between tenancies.

The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout, that the carpets were dirty and stained, that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked and that there was a cockroach infestation. General cleaning was therefore required. 3 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008

The landlord provided inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy, photographs, and an invoice to support the claim.

The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be re-tenanted and the invoice for cleaning costs included a full and deep clean. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition. I make an order for the amount of $900.00.

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. 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 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

The landlord’s insurance excess was $500 and rent was $655.00 weekly.

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 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 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. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Smashed window, Door and wall damage deck damage

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A large window was smashed. b. Walls and a wardrobe door was damaged with a number of holes. c. The deck was damaged with holes and what appears to be scratching and chewing by a dog. I understand the tenant had a dog.

The landlord claimed $1690.50 for the glass repair, hole patchwork and patch repairs to the deck.

The smashed window, wall and door damage appears largely intentional, likely from the tenant or a person permitted in the premise by the tenant, kicking or punching the walls and window.

The deck damage appears to be the result of the tenant allowing her dog to scratch and chew the deck for a prolonged period of time and most likely a number of times. It is therefore likely to have been intentional.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I make an order for the amount of $1,490.50 to reflect betterment and depreciation, as the deck appeared dated at the commencement of the tenancy, therefore I consider the tenant should not be liable for the full amount for painting the deck. Exterior damage to cladding and trellis

The landlord claimed $1,936.60 based on a quote to repair the house cladding and trellis fences that the landlord says was damaged during the tenancy.

The ingoing inspection reports show the trellis was aged and worn. The landlord estimated it was approximately 10 years old. I consider it unlikely a wooden trellis would have a lifespan beyond 10 years. In addition, the damage is not clear in the post tenancy inspection report, and it is difficult to identify where any damage is more than fair wear and tear. Therefore, on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the trellis was damaged beyond fair wear and tear.

I therefore dismiss the claim in respect of the trellis (which amounted to $687 + GST for the trellis, $236 + GST for trellis capping, and half the labour $227.50 +GST).

The remainder of the quote was for repairing the Villa board cladding, it provided - Villa board $216 +GST. Allowing Half labour - $227.50 + GST Dumping of villa board $90 +GST. Total $533.50 +GST = $613.52

The landlord said the property was approximately 30 years old and I therefore consider it likely this cladding is approximately 30 years old also.

The landlord has provided photographs of the villa board cladding that appears to have been damaged by the landlord’s dog digging to get under the house. The damage appears to have been the result of the dog digging over a prolonged period of time and was therefore likely to have been intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

However, in having regard to the age of the cladding and that it appeared worn and aged at the commencement of the tenancy I make an order for $375 which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the damaged villa board. Filing fee

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. 14 Name suppression

The landlord confirmed name suppression was not sought 15 14 See section 103 of the RTA. 15 See section 95A of the RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5112850 — net $2,966.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$174.01	Water rates
Cleaning	$900.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Window, walls and deck	$1,490.50	Repairs: Window, walls and deck
Repairs: Cladding	$375.00	Repairs: Cladding
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	andlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. 14 Name suppression
Net award	$2,966.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,966.51