What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5428372?

The tribunal order states: Abdullah Rahman and Maliha Parvin to pay Real Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5428372?

Cleaning: $335.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428372?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13350785-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5428372?

The tribunal order states: Abdullah Rahman and Maliha Parvin to pay Real Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5428372?

Cleaning: $335.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428372?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13350785-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 22 Haast Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428372 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428372 — net $863.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinet	$200.00	Repairs: Kitchen cabinet
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$335.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$863.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$863.00

Order

Abdullah Rahman and Maliha Parvin to pay Real Property Management Limited As Agent For Asdf Properties Ltd $863.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $863.00 (3188760-035) to Real Property Management Limited As Agent For Asdf Properties Ltd immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $62.00 (3188760-035) to Abdullah Rahman and Maliha Parvin immediately.

Reasons

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

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 claimed the Tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. She states further cleaning was needed, including wiping walls, ceilings, and surfaces, as well as cleaning the fridge, cupboards, and kitchen floors. She also submitted the chairs had food stains that required upholstery cleaning.
The Landlord provided exit inspection photographs and a cleaning invoice to support this. She also stated there were stains on the floors and some chairs at the end of the tenancy which required cleaning. The entry and exit reports show these stains were not present at the start of the tenancy (apart from one in the lounge).
The Tenant disagreed with the cleaning costs and stated he left the property clean. He accepts there were stains in the lounge but says these were already there at the start. He also recalls the Landlord being satisfied with the overall cleanliness at the end of the tenancy, and only mentioning the lounge stain and the kitchen cabinets that needed attention.
In considering the evidence, I find the property required cleaning, carpet and upholstery cleaning. The exit inspection photographs and cleaning invoice indicate that further cleaning was needed beyond a reasonable standard. I am satisfied the Tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The amounts claimed 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 Landlord submitted that damage to the kitchen cabinet occurred during the tenancy. The cabinet doors exhibited paint deterioration consistent with the application of a chemical substance, causing the paint finish to lift. The Landlord states that the cabinets had been freshly painted only days prior to the commencement of the tenancy, and provided entry inspection photographs which show the cabinetry in a good condition.
The Tenant submitted that the damage amounts to fair wear and tear, and states that there were difficulties opening and closing the cabinet doors from the outset. While the Tenant acknowledges raising this issue at the beginning of the tenancy, and that some remedial action was taken by the Landlord, they accept that the problem persisted. The Tenant however did not make any further report to the Landlord regarding the ongoing difficulty of opening the cabinets or the damage.
In considering the evidence, I find that the damage is not fair wear and tear given the near-new condition of the cabinets at the start of the tenancy. I place weight on the Landlord’s photographic evidence and the nature of the damage described, which is inconsistent with ordinary use.
I further find that, having been aware of the ongoing issue with the cabinet doors, the Tenant had a continuing obligation to notify the Landlord when the problem persisted. This would have prevented further damage. The Tenant’s failure to do so contributed to the deterioration, and responsibility for the resulting damage therefore rests with the Tenant.
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 the Landlord has been wholly successful with their claims, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee to the Landlord.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428372 — net $863.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinet	$200.00	Repairs: Kitchen cabinet
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$335.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$863.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$863.00

Order

Abdullah Rahman and Maliha Parvin to pay Real Property Management Limited As Agent For Asdf Properties Ltd $863.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $863.00 (3188760-035) to Real Property Management Limited As Agent For Asdf Properties Ltd immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $62.00 (3188760-035) to Abdullah Rahman and Maliha Parvin immediately.

Reasons

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

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 claimed the Tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. She states further cleaning was needed, including wiping walls, ceilings, and surfaces, as well as cleaning the fridge, cupboards, and kitchen floors. She also submitted the chairs had food stains that required upholstery cleaning.
The Landlord provided exit inspection photographs and a cleaning invoice to support this. She also stated there were stains on the floors and some chairs at the end of the tenancy which required cleaning. The entry and exit reports show these stains were not present at the start of the tenancy (apart from one in the lounge).
The Tenant disagreed with the cleaning costs and stated he left the property clean. He accepts there were stains in the lounge but says these were already there at the start. He also recalls the Landlord being satisfied with the overall cleanliness at the end of the tenancy, and only mentioning the lounge stain and the kitchen cabinets that needed attention.
In considering the evidence, I find the property required cleaning, carpet and upholstery cleaning. The exit inspection photographs and cleaning invoice indicate that further cleaning was needed beyond a reasonable standard. I am satisfied the Tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The amounts claimed 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 Landlord submitted that damage to the kitchen cabinet occurred during the tenancy. The cabinet doors exhibited paint deterioration consistent with the application of a chemical substance, causing the paint finish to lift. The Landlord states that the cabinets had been freshly painted only days prior to the commencement of the tenancy, and provided entry inspection photographs which show the cabinetry in a good condition.
The Tenant submitted that the damage amounts to fair wear and tear, and states that there were difficulties opening and closing the cabinet doors from the outset. While the Tenant acknowledges raising this issue at the beginning of the tenancy, and that some remedial action was taken by the Landlord, they accept that the problem persisted. The Tenant however did not make any further report to the Landlord regarding the ongoing difficulty of opening the cabinets or the damage.
In considering the evidence, I find that the damage is not fair wear and tear given the near-new condition of the cabinets at the start of the tenancy. I place weight on the Landlord’s photographic evidence and the nature of the damage described, which is inconsistent with ordinary use.
I further find that, having been aware of the ongoing issue with the cabinet doors, the Tenant had a continuing obligation to notify the Landlord when the problem persisted. This would have prevented further damage. The Tenant’s failure to do so contributed to the deterioration, and responsibility for the resulting damage therefore rests with the Tenant.
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 the Landlord has been wholly successful with their claims, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee to the Landlord.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428372 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 22 Haast Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428372 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 22 Haast Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

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