What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5432271?

The tribunal order states: Kelly Maria Hopkins must pay Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat

How much money was awarded in case 5432271?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Gate/Fence: $439.30 awarded to landlord; Sink Plugs: $124.02 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $2,723.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13391393-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5432271?

The tribunal order states: Kelly Maria Hopkins must pay Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat

How much money was awarded in case 5432271?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Gate/Fence: $439.30 awarded to landlord; Sink Plugs: $124.02 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $2,723.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13391393-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Devon Road, Springvale, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432271 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432271 — net $965.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: sink plugs	$124.02	Repairs: sink plugs
Repairs: gate/fence	$439.30	Repairs: gate/fence
Repairs: wall and door damage	$400.00	Repairs: wall and door damage
Repairs: vinyl and carpet replacement	$2,723.95	Repairs: vinyl and carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$965.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.27

Order

Kelly Maria Hopkins must pay Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat Koubaridis $965.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (BN-00078765) to Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat Koubaridis immediately. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$350.00 Cleaning$100.00 Repairs: sink plugs$124.02 Repairs: gate/fence$439.30 Repairs: wall and door damage$400.00 Repairs: vinyl and carpet replacement$2,723.95 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$4,165.27 Bond$3,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$965.27

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.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. d. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord’s photographic evidence shows that there were some small areas where surfaces had not been wiped: the kitchen hob, vanity drawers in the bathroom. The landlord has claimed a sum for the cleaning of other items which would amount to a spring-clean and which may make the property more appealing to a prospective tenant. This level of cleaning was not required of the tenant in order to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
A sum has been awarded for the cleaning of these areas based on invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such work in this area.
The tenant responsibly accepted the landlord’s photographic evidence that the carpets in bedrooms 5 and 6 were soiled and stained at the end of the tenancy. The sum claimed by the landlord is fair and reasonable and is proven.

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 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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy a. The built-in sink plug was missing in a bathroom. b. The basket plug in the kitchen was missing. c. A section of the fence required repair and reinstallation. d. There were several holes in the walls and in an internal door. e. The vinyl in the laundry had been torn in several places and required replacement. f. The stains in the carpet of bedrooms 5 and 6 could not be removed by cleaning and required replacement.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord’s insurance excess was $1,250.00. This is the maximum amount of the tenant’s liability for careless damage. All of the damage was careless, except for the wall and door damage which from its nature and extent was intentional; and the carpet damage which was intentional because the landlord allowed the careless and progressive damage to continue. The tenant’s liability for intentional damage is not limited by the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess.
The landlord has submitted an invoice for work completed by his own company. It is necessary for the Tribunal to examine such charges carefully as the amounts charged may not be aligned with reasonable charges by other contractors. While the Tribunal does not usually require a landlord to have obtained competitive quotes for repairs, it will not award a sum higher than that for similar work which it routinely sees.
The Tribunal accepts the charges made by the landlord for the repairs except for the repairs to holes in the walls and the internal door. The Tribunal regularly sees invoices for much lesser sums for the same type of repairs in this area and the amount awarded is in keeping with those charges.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tribunal has considered 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. The landlord provided evidence that the carpets and vinyl were new at the start of the tenancy and it is appropriate that the tenant pay the full cost of replacement as the tenancy was for a period of less than seven months.
Because Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat Koubaridis has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432271 — net $965.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: sink plugs	$124.02	Repairs: sink plugs
Repairs: gate/fence	$439.30	Repairs: gate/fence
Repairs: wall and door damage	$400.00	Repairs: wall and door damage
Repairs: vinyl and carpet replacement	$2,723.95	Repairs: vinyl and carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$965.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.27

Order

Kelly Maria Hopkins must pay Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat Koubaridis $965.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (BN-00078765) to Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat Koubaridis immediately. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$350.00 Cleaning$100.00 Repairs: sink plugs$124.02 Repairs: gate/fence$439.30 Repairs: wall and door damage$400.00 Repairs: vinyl and carpet replacement$2,723.95 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$4,165.27 Bond$3,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$965.27

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.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. d. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord’s photographic evidence shows that there were some small areas where surfaces had not been wiped: the kitchen hob, vanity drawers in the bathroom. The landlord has claimed a sum for the cleaning of other items which would amount to a spring-clean and which may make the property more appealing to a prospective tenant. This level of cleaning was not required of the tenant in order to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
A sum has been awarded for the cleaning of these areas based on invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such work in this area.
The tenant responsibly accepted the landlord’s photographic evidence that the carpets in bedrooms 5 and 6 were soiled and stained at the end of the tenancy. The sum claimed by the landlord is fair and reasonable and is proven.

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 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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy a. The built-in sink plug was missing in a bathroom. b. The basket plug in the kitchen was missing. c. A section of the fence required repair and reinstallation. d. There were several holes in the walls and in an internal door. e. The vinyl in the laundry had been torn in several places and required replacement. f. The stains in the carpet of bedrooms 5 and 6 could not be removed by cleaning and required replacement.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord’s insurance excess was $1,250.00. This is the maximum amount of the tenant’s liability for careless damage. All of the damage was careless, except for the wall and door damage which from its nature and extent was intentional; and the carpet damage which was intentional because the landlord allowed the careless and progressive damage to continue. The tenant’s liability for intentional damage is not limited by the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess.
The landlord has submitted an invoice for work completed by his own company. It is necessary for the Tribunal to examine such charges carefully as the amounts charged may not be aligned with reasonable charges by other contractors. While the Tribunal does not usually require a landlord to have obtained competitive quotes for repairs, it will not award a sum higher than that for similar work which it routinely sees.
The Tribunal accepts the charges made by the landlord for the repairs except for the repairs to holes in the walls and the internal door. The Tribunal regularly sees invoices for much lesser sums for the same type of repairs in this area and the amount awarded is in keeping with those charges.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tribunal has considered 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. The landlord provided evidence that the carpets and vinyl were new at the start of the tenancy and it is appropriate that the tenant pay the full cost of replacement as the tenancy was for a period of less than seven months.
Because Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agents For Mat Koubaridis has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432271 — Property damage at 1 Devon Road, Springvale, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432271 — Property damage at 1 Devon Road, Springvale, Whanganui 4501

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