What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226312?

The tribunal order states: Suzanne Fitton must pay Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5226312?

Cleaning: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226312?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12081885-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226312?

The tribunal order states: Suzanne Fitton must pay Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5226312?

Cleaning: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226312?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12081885-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1005 Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5226312 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226312 — net $1,867.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$805.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,035.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,867.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,867.00

Suzanne Fitton must pay Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust $1,867.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.

The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

The claims for lawnmowing, pest control and window repairs are dismissed for want of evidence.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. An attempt was made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided. The attempt was unsuccessful.

The landlord has applied for compensation, a disposal order, 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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided a number of exit photographs which confirm the significant rubbish and other items left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, both inside and outside the property. The landlord also provided an invoice from KPS Services in support of these claims.

Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations by not leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and removing all rubbish.

The amounts ordered in respect of cleaning and rubbish removal are proved. Pest control and lawn mowing

The landlord claims for pest control and lawn mowing. The landlord has not provided entry photographic evidence confirming the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. At the very least I would have expected an entry inspection report with photographic evidence which shows the state of the lawns when the tenant moved in. There was also no evidence provided of a pest infestation.

Accordingly, the claims for pest control and lawn mowing must be dismissed.

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. Window repairs

The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a window. Other than an invoice, no photographic ‘before and after’ evidence has been provided by the landlord in support of this claim.

In the absence of this evidence I am unable to properly assess this claim, even on the balance of probabilities.

The claim for window repairs is dismissed. Disposal order

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord a. is unable to contact the tenant.

It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Because Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5226312 — net $1,867.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$805.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,035.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,867.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,867.00

Order

Suzanne Fitton must pay Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust $1,867.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
The claims for lawnmowing, pest control and window repairs are dismissed for want of evidence.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. An attempt was made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided. The attempt was unsuccessful.
The landlord has applied for compensation, a disposal order, 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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a number of exit photographs which confirm the significant rubbish and other items left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, both inside and outside the property. The landlord also provided an invoice from KPS Services in support of these claims.
Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations by not leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy and removing all rubbish.
The amounts ordered in respect of cleaning and rubbish removal are proved. Pest control and lawn mowing
The landlord claims for pest control and lawn mowing. The landlord has not provided entry photographic evidence confirming the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. At the very least I would have expected an entry inspection report with photographic evidence which shows the state of the lawns when the tenant moved in. There was also no evidence provided of a pest infestation.
Accordingly, the claims for pest control and lawn mowing must be dismissed.

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. Window repairs
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a window. Other than an invoice, no photographic ‘before and after’ evidence has been provided by the landlord in support of this claim.
In the absence of this evidence I am unable to properly assess this claim, even on the balance of probabilities.
The claim for window repairs is dismissed. Disposal order
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord a. is unable to contact the tenant.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because Rentex Limited As Agent For Wendy Huang Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226312 — Cleanliness at 1005 Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226312 — Cleanliness at 1005 Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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