What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158994?

The tribunal order states: Thaina Diogenes Santana and Pedro Henrique Araujo Leopoldo to pay Yuk

How much money was awarded in case 5158994?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $112.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Door: $261.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11731876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158994?

The tribunal order states: Thaina Diogenes Santana and Pedro Henrique Araujo Leopoldo to pay Yuk

How much money was awarded in case 5158994?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $112.00 awarded to landlord; Oven Door: $261.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11731876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 407, 231 Madras Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158994 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158994 — net $713.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: including removal of carpet stains	$160.00	21. I have ordered that the tenants pay $160.00, being approximately half this remaining amount.
Oven/stove cleaning: as agreed	$112.00	Oven/stove cleaning: as agreed
Repairs: Oven door	$261.98	Repairs: Oven door
Deck clean	$180.00	Deck clean
Net award	$713.98
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$713.98

Order

Thaina Diogenes Santana and Pedro Henrique Araujo Leopoldo to pay Yuk Tong Cheung and Pui Pui Wong $713.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6395533-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Yuk Tong Cheung and Pui Pui Wong: $713.98 Thaina Diogenes Santana and Pedro Henrique Araujo Leopoldo: $786.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Au attended as Property Manager and representative for the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a full refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial 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 Act). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord claimed $490.00 for cleaning required following the end of the tenancy.
One tenant had walked through the premises together with the property manager on the last day of the tenancy. The property manager had seemed happy with the general state of the property but had mentioned one small area that could be attended to. The tenants had returned to the property later to attend to that matter and had then returned the keys thinking that the inspection was complete.
The property manager had told the tenant present at the inspection, and repeated to the other tenant by text, that he would be going through the premises with the owner and would “get back to [the tenants] on the deposit.”
The tenants had seen this as a formality, but the property manager thought he had made it clear that he would be conducting a more thorough inspection with the owners present and that the owners would then determine if any claims needed to be made against the bond.
To my mind, there was a genuine misunderstanding as to the purpose of the owner inspection, but I do not consider that this changes the issue of whether or not the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy as required by the Act.
The owners identified some issues and raised these with the tenant and the tenant then made this application with the landlord making a cross application to claim compensation from the bond.
Both parties provided photographs and other information in relation to the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the property was not clean in all respects at the beginning of their tenancy and provided evidence of photographs to support that,
The landlord accepted this and provided copies of invoices to show that both the oven and the carpets had been cleaned very early in the tenancy at the tenants’ request and at the landlord’s cost.
There was evidence provided by the tenants that other parts of the premises were not completely clean (for example the heat pump filters and some walls).
The tenants acknowledge that the oven had been cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy and that they had not left it entirely clean at the end.
They accepted responsibility for $112.00 of the cleaning invoice on the basis that this was the cost of the oven clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord accepted this amount for oven cleaning and the amount is ordered by agreement.
The landlord acknowledged that the cleaning invoice included an amount for cleaning the carpet in the bedrooms and that these rooms did not have stained carpet. He suggested that an amount of $60.00 could be deducted to allow for this (the full carpet cleaning portion of the invoice being $160.00).
Once deductions are made for this concession and the amount the tenants’ accepted for oven cleaning, the remaining cleaning claim is $318.00.
I have ordered that the tenants pay $160.00, being approximately half this remaining amount.
I accept that the landlord’s evidence shows that the property did require some additional cleaning to be brought to the required standard, particularly to the living room carpet and the bathroom.
I have reduced the amount ordered as the tenants provided evidence that the property was not clean and tidy in all respects at the beginning of the tenancy (some walls and the heat pump filter for example).
Additionally, the landlord had written to the tenants saying that they had failed to provide evidence of professional cleaning. Tenants are not obliged to have a property professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and this should not be the level expected by a landlord.
The landlord also gave evidence that the owners had felt that, as some areas had not been sufficiently cleaned, they had wanted to ensure that the whole property was cleaned professionally.
The evidence provided suggested that the tenants had cleaned much of the property to a reasonable standard so it is not fair that they should cover the costs of a full professional clean.
The amount of $160.00 for additional cleaning is ordered.
The landlord also claimed for professional cleaning to the deck which they alleged was stained by the tenants and required professional cleaning.
A quotation was provided by a commercial cleaning company stating that the amount to clean the stains (alleged to be grease) from the deck would be $357.76. The work has yet to be completed pending the outcome of this hearing.
As there was evidence of some more minor staining prior to this tenancy, the landlord is claiming approximately half this amount being $180.00.
Although the cause of the staining (alleged by the landlord to be from barbequing on the balcony), has not been established. It is clear that the balcony is considerably stained, and it was not badly stained at the beginning of the tenancy.
It is also clear that the tenants barbequed on the balcony often enough to have purchased a large chargrill barbeque during the tenancy.
The landlord does not have to prove how the damage occurred to be successful in claiming compensation for the loss.
I consider the claim for half the cost of cleaning the balcony is reasonable as there was some minor staining before the tenancy began.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord claimed that the plugs from each of the kitchen and laundry were missing. The estimated replacement cost is $20.00.
The tenants said that the plugs were not there at the beginning of the tenancy.
They explained that in their home country it is not usual to fill either a laundry or kitchen sink, so they had not missed the plugs and had not notified the landlord that they were missing.
The landlord gave evidence that the owners are very particular and would have noticed if plugs were missing at the end of the previous tenancy.
Although this may be the case, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the plugs were there, and it was acknowledged during the hearing that the property was not completely clean in all respects when these tenants moved in so it is possible that the owners also overlooked the missing plugs.
Given the lack of evidence I cannot award any compensation for the plugs and that claim is dismissed.
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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 damage was caused to a curtain, rubbish bins, the shower seal, and the oven door during the tenancy.
Conflicting evidence was provided in relation to a small stain on a curtain in a bedroom.
The photographs provided were inconclusive. I cannot be certain that the stain occurred during the tenancy and therefore the claim cannot succeed and is dismissed.
The parties agreed that the built-in rubbish bins were difficult to use during the tenancy. The initial difficulty seemed to be caused by damage to the system prior to this tenancy beginning.
As the property was only two years old at the beginning of this tenancy, the bin system was clearly not robust.
The tenant had mentioned this to the property manager and had resorted to using their own separate rubbish bin.
The landlord provided photographs to show that the bins themselves were physically broken at the end of this tenancy.
Given that the bins were already in poor repair and had not been replaced or repaired during the tenancy despite the tenants having mentioned the issue to the landlord, I cannot find that the damage is either intentional or careless. The damage is more likely due to continued attempts to use bins (in the usual way) that were already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants should not be responsible for this cost and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided some evidence that the seal on the bottom of the glass door of the shower was slightly damaged. The landlord said this caused water to leak on the floor when the shower was being used. The landlord claimed $16.00 for a replacement seal.
The tenants’ evidence was that this damage existed at the beginning of the tenancy and that they had managed it by turning the shower head away from the door while showering to avoid leaks. The disputed that they were responsible for the damage.
No evidence was provided to confirm that this damage was caused during this tenancy, and, in any case, such damage could easily be caused by fair wear and tear due to normal usage and cleaning.
The claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to prove that the oven door was damaged during the tenancy. The invoice was for repairs to stretched hinges on the door.
The tenants said this was fair wear and tear and that the oven had not been serviced during the tenancy.
The property was two years old at the beginning of this tenancy and the oven had been professionally cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy at the tenant’s request.
The tenants had clearly used the oven as it was dirty at the end of the tenancy, and they accepted responsibility for that.
I do not accept that an oven of this age needs to be serviced or that stretched hinges would be a consequence of fair wear and tear from normal usage.
I find that the tenants have caused damage to the oven door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being $261.98, is proved.
As both parties have had some success, application fees fall where they lie.
The landlord asked for name suppression in their application but as they were neither wholly nor substantially successful no suppression order is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158994 — net $713.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: including removal of carpet stains	$160.00	21. I have ordered that the tenants pay $160.00, being approximately half this remaining amount.
Oven/stove cleaning: as agreed	$112.00	Oven/stove cleaning: as agreed
Repairs: Oven door	$261.98	Repairs: Oven door
Deck clean	$180.00	Deck clean
Net award	$713.98
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$713.98

Order

Thaina Diogenes Santana and Pedro Henrique Araujo Leopoldo to pay Yuk Tong Cheung and Pui Pui Wong $713.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6395533-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Yuk Tong Cheung and Pui Pui Wong: $713.98 Thaina Diogenes Santana and Pedro Henrique Araujo Leopoldo: $786.02

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Au attended as Property Manager and representative for the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a full refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial 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 Act). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord claimed $490.00 for cleaning required following the end of the tenancy.
One tenant had walked through the premises together with the property manager on the last day of the tenancy. The property manager had seemed happy with the general state of the property but had mentioned one small area that could be attended to. The tenants had returned to the property later to attend to that matter and had then returned the keys thinking that the inspection was complete.
The property manager had told the tenant present at the inspection, and repeated to the other tenant by text, that he would be going through the premises with the owner and would “get back to [the tenants] on the deposit.”
The tenants had seen this as a formality, but the property manager thought he had made it clear that he would be conducting a more thorough inspection with the owners present and that the owners would then determine if any claims needed to be made against the bond.
To my mind, there was a genuine misunderstanding as to the purpose of the owner inspection, but I do not consider that this changes the issue of whether or not the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy as required by the Act.
The owners identified some issues and raised these with the tenant and the tenant then made this application with the landlord making a cross application to claim compensation from the bond.
Both parties provided photographs and other information in relation to the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the property was not clean in all respects at the beginning of their tenancy and provided evidence of photographs to support that,
The landlord accepted this and provided copies of invoices to show that both the oven and the carpets had been cleaned very early in the tenancy at the tenants’ request and at the landlord’s cost.
There was evidence provided by the tenants that other parts of the premises were not completely clean (for example the heat pump filters and some walls).
The tenants acknowledge that the oven had been cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy and that they had not left it entirely clean at the end.
They accepted responsibility for $112.00 of the cleaning invoice on the basis that this was the cost of the oven clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord accepted this amount for oven cleaning and the amount is ordered by agreement.
The landlord acknowledged that the cleaning invoice included an amount for cleaning the carpet in the bedrooms and that these rooms did not have stained carpet. He suggested that an amount of $60.00 could be deducted to allow for this (the full carpet cleaning portion of the invoice being $160.00).
Once deductions are made for this concession and the amount the tenants’ accepted for oven cleaning, the remaining cleaning claim is $318.00.
I have ordered that the tenants pay $160.00, being approximately half this remaining amount.
I accept that the landlord’s evidence shows that the property did require some additional cleaning to be brought to the required standard, particularly to the living room carpet and the bathroom.
I have reduced the amount ordered as the tenants provided evidence that the property was not clean and tidy in all respects at the beginning of the tenancy (some walls and the heat pump filter for example).
Additionally, the landlord had written to the tenants saying that they had failed to provide evidence of professional cleaning. Tenants are not obliged to have a property professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and this should not be the level expected by a landlord.
The landlord also gave evidence that the owners had felt that, as some areas had not been sufficiently cleaned, they had wanted to ensure that the whole property was cleaned professionally.
The evidence provided suggested that the tenants had cleaned much of the property to a reasonable standard so it is not fair that they should cover the costs of a full professional clean.
The amount of $160.00 for additional cleaning is ordered.
The landlord also claimed for professional cleaning to the deck which they alleged was stained by the tenants and required professional cleaning.
A quotation was provided by a commercial cleaning company stating that the amount to clean the stains (alleged to be grease) from the deck would be $357.76. The work has yet to be completed pending the outcome of this hearing.
As there was evidence of some more minor staining prior to this tenancy, the landlord is claiming approximately half this amount being $180.00.
Although the cause of the staining (alleged by the landlord to be from barbequing on the balcony), has not been established. It is clear that the balcony is considerably stained, and it was not badly stained at the beginning of the tenancy.
It is also clear that the tenants barbequed on the balcony often enough to have purchased a large chargrill barbeque during the tenancy.
The landlord does not have to prove how the damage occurred to be successful in claiming compensation for the loss.
I consider the claim for half the cost of cleaning the balcony is reasonable as there was some minor staining before the tenancy began.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord claimed that the plugs from each of the kitchen and laundry were missing. The estimated replacement cost is $20.00.
The tenants said that the plugs were not there at the beginning of the tenancy.
They explained that in their home country it is not usual to fill either a laundry or kitchen sink, so they had not missed the plugs and had not notified the landlord that they were missing.
The landlord gave evidence that the owners are very particular and would have noticed if plugs were missing at the end of the previous tenancy.
Although this may be the case, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the plugs were there, and it was acknowledged during the hearing that the property was not completely clean in all respects when these tenants moved in so it is possible that the owners also overlooked the missing plugs.
Given the lack of evidence I cannot award any compensation for the plugs and that claim is dismissed.
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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 damage was caused to a curtain, rubbish bins, the shower seal, and the oven door during the tenancy.
Conflicting evidence was provided in relation to a small stain on a curtain in a bedroom.
The photographs provided were inconclusive. I cannot be certain that the stain occurred during the tenancy and therefore the claim cannot succeed and is dismissed.
The parties agreed that the built-in rubbish bins were difficult to use during the tenancy. The initial difficulty seemed to be caused by damage to the system prior to this tenancy beginning.
As the property was only two years old at the beginning of this tenancy, the bin system was clearly not robust.
The tenant had mentioned this to the property manager and had resorted to using their own separate rubbish bin.
The landlord provided photographs to show that the bins themselves were physically broken at the end of this tenancy.
Given that the bins were already in poor repair and had not been replaced or repaired during the tenancy despite the tenants having mentioned the issue to the landlord, I cannot find that the damage is either intentional or careless. The damage is more likely due to continued attempts to use bins (in the usual way) that were already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants should not be responsible for this cost and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided some evidence that the seal on the bottom of the glass door of the shower was slightly damaged. The landlord said this caused water to leak on the floor when the shower was being used. The landlord claimed $16.00 for a replacement seal.
The tenants’ evidence was that this damage existed at the beginning of the tenancy and that they had managed it by turning the shower head away from the door while showering to avoid leaks. The disputed that they were responsible for the damage.
No evidence was provided to confirm that this damage was caused during this tenancy, and, in any case, such damage could easily be caused by fair wear and tear due to normal usage and cleaning.
The claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to prove that the oven door was damaged during the tenancy. The invoice was for repairs to stretched hinges on the door.
The tenants said this was fair wear and tear and that the oven had not been serviced during the tenancy.
The property was two years old at the beginning of this tenancy and the oven had been professionally cleaned at the beginning of the tenancy at the tenant’s request.
The tenants had clearly used the oven as it was dirty at the end of the tenancy, and they accepted responsibility for that.
I do not accept that an oven of this age needs to be serviced or that stretched hinges would be a consequence of fair wear and tear from normal usage.
I find that the tenants have caused damage to the oven door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being $261.98, is proved.
As both parties have had some success, application fees fall where they lie.
The landlord asked for name suppression in their application but as they were neither wholly nor substantially successful no suppression order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158994 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 407, 231 Madras Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158994 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 407, 231 Madras Street, Christchurch Central,

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

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

Frequently asked questions