Tenant Ordered to Pay $2,327.00 for Clean-Up and Repairs

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 1

[2025] NZTT 5183731

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $2,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Description Landlord Tenant Lawns and Garden work $1,800.00 Repairs to door frame and wall $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $2,327.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $2,327.00

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended the hearing on 27 May 2025.

2. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

3. As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 2

of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

4. As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:

…[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

5. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

1. Lawnmowing

6. 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.1

7. The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.”2

8. The duty to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy therefore relates to the inside and outside of the premises.

9. The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs of the lawns taken on 10 January 2025, four days after the tenancy ended.

10. The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,800.00 for lawnmowing.

11. The tenant disputes that they left the lawns overgrown and gave evidence that they paid a contractor $700.00 to mow the lawns approximately 1.5 weeks before the tenancy ended.

12. The tenant did not submit any of photographs of the lawns taken at the end of the tenancy or an invoice from the contractor they paid.

1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 3

13. On the basis of the photographs of the lawns taken on 10 January 2025, I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy. The grass is overgrown to quite a substantial degree and there are numerous weeds present.

14. The landlord has had the lawns mowed and weeds removed at a cost of $1,800.00. Whilst the amount is higher than what the Tribunal usually sees for lawnmowing, the length of the grass was quite long and the premises are large, spanning approximately 3,717 squared metres. Understood in this context, I consider the invoice to be reasonable.

15. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,800.00 to mow the lawns is granted in full.

2. Damage to internal door and wall

16. 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.3

17. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is responsible for damaging a doorframe and wall.

18. The landlord gave evidence that the door in between the kitchen and hallway was covered entirely with a piece of black adhesive. The landlord claims this acted as a sound barrier and the tenant removed the adhesive without the landlord’s permission. The landlord states this caused some paint to pull off the doorframe and wall, and glue residue was left on these areas as well. The landlord submitted a photograph of the door and wall.

19. The landlord submitted a quote for $2,070.00. The landlord gave evidence that they have an invoice for this amount but could not locate it during the hearing. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,350.00 to repair the doorframe and wall, stating that the quote is in relation to two doors and they are only seeking compensation for one.

20. The tenant accepts that they removed the black adhesive from the door without the landlord’s permission. The tenant gave evidence that at one time, this part of the house was occupied by a separate tenant. The tenant claims the separate tenant had an oven which was placed against the door and black adhesive. The tenant gave evidence that the adhesive was not fire-proof and it was a safety risk. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord and

3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 4

when the landlord did nothing about it. The tenant took it upon themselves to remove the adhesive and oven once the separate tenancy ended.

21. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant damaged the doorframe and wall during the tenancy by intentionally removing the black adhesive. The damage is more than fair wear and tear with paint being removed from the door frame and wall, and glue residue left behind.

22. The tenant’s reasons for removing the adhesive might be legitimate however, the tenant has not filed their own application alleging any breach of the RTA by the landlord and therefore, I cannot take their reason into account.

23. The quote submitted by the landlord refers to four doors being repaired. The landlord claims the quote is poorly worded and simply references both sides of two doors that were repaired.

24. The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that they have incurred a cost of $1,350.00 to repair the door, as they did not submit an invoice. The wording of the quote appears to state that four doors have been fixed and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this is simply a matter of poor wording.

25. I accept the landlord has suffered a loss, at least in terms of the diminution in value of the doorframe and wall, but they have not proven on the balance of probabilities that this loss equates to $1,350.00.

26. In all the circumstances, I consider $500.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to award the landlord for the damage to the doorframe and wall.

27. The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the doorframe and wall is granted for $500.00.

28. The amount ordered is proved.

29. 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.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 5

3. Filing fee

30. [COMPANY] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

[NAME]

27 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 6

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5183731 7

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: