What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4508590?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4508590?

Cleaning: $945.96 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $168.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $59.94 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $23.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $313.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,935.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $6.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4508590?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4508590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9219996-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4508590?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4508590?

Cleaning: $945.96 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $168.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $59.94 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $23.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $313.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,935.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $6.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4508590?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4508590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9219996-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66 Wharekaho Road, Wharekaho, RD 2, Whitianga 3592 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4508590 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

66 Wharekaho Road, Wharekaho, RD 2, Whitianga 3592 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4508590 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4508590 — net $3,031.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 December 2022	$1,935.00	Rent arrears to 26 December 2022
Lock/key replacement	$23.87	Lock/key replacement
Deck Cleaning	$168.00	Deck Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment	$945.96	Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Smoke alarm	$6.79	Smoke alarm
Light Bulbs	$70.00	Light Bulbs
Lawns and Garden work	$59.94	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet repairs	$120.00	Carpet repairs
Replacement of upstairs hard flooring - excess	$550.00	Replacement of upstairs hard flooring - excess
Replacement of downstairs hard flooring - excess	$550.00	Replacement of downstairs hard flooring - excess
Replacement of garage door - excess	$400.00	Replacement of garage door - excess
Window repairs	$313.77	Window repairs
Repairs to door latches	$17.90	Repairs to door latches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,031.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,031.67

Claims and awards for application 4508590 — net $3,031.67 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 26 December 2022

Amount: $1,935.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 26 December 2022

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $23.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Deck Cleaning

Amount: $168.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Deck Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment

Amount: $945.96
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment

Cleaning

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rlett Hoeta must pay M H Realty Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Stephanie Shaw $3,031.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6235021-014) to M H Realty Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Stephanie Shaw immediately.

Reasons

The property manager and the landlord (owner) attended the hearing, but the tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises are large, containing five bedrooms, a large rumpus room, 4.5 bathrooms and decks on both the top and ground floors. The tenancy started on 6 April 2021 and ended on 26 December 2022. The tenancy agreement recorded that the tenants were able to have two small dogs at the premises, however there is evidence that a large dog was also at the premises.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 December 2022 as a result of the tenant giving the landlord notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: a) The deck: The deck had a number of marks and stains that required cleaning; b) Carpet cleaning and flea treatment: The carpet was stained and required cleaning. There were fleas in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The carpet was commercially cleaned by a contractor who also carried out a flea treatment on the carpet at a total cost of $750.00. There was evidence that the tenant used flea bombs in the premises at the end of the tenancy however the premises were infested when the landlord took possession. The landlord used three flea bombs (at a cost of $42.00) but that did not eliminate the fleas. The landlord then sprayed Ripcord (two 500ml bottles of Ripcord concentrate at a cost of $153.96) in the house to eliminate the fleas, but the fleas remained. A flea treatment was then carried out by the carpet cleaner which eradicated the fleas. I am satisfied that there was a severe flea infestation and the costs of the treatment and carpet cleaning are in keeping with the size of the house. The total cost of the carpet clean and the flea treatments is awarded. c) Cleaning: The landlord claims $800.00 for cleaning. The premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required by the RTA. However having considered all of the evidence, including photographs, I find $650.00 is a reasonable cost to clean the premises to the standard required. d) Garden Work: The gardens required weeding.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace a smoke alarm.
Lightbulbs: The landlord claims $216.87 to replace lightbulbs on the basis that 9 were missing and the remainder claimed were not working. The claim includes 22 LED bulbs, 2 LED spots, 1 heat lamp, and 2 halogen bulbs. LEDs are the longest-lasting light bulbs, working for years longer than their counterparts. Halogen light bulbs in comparison have a far shorter life albeit longer than an incandescent bulb.
The landlord gave evidence that the lights were all working at the outset of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was required to keep the lightbulbs in working order during the tenancy. This is not determinative of the issue, as section 11 of the RTA provides that any agreement that is inconsistent with the Act is of no effect. Prior decisions of the Tribunal have awarded costs standard incandescent lightbulbs, but have not consistently awarded costs for longer-lasting lightbulbs. Arguably, lightbulbs could be regarded as a maintenance item, the responsibility of the landlord.
In this instance while light bulbs failed during the tenancy I am satisfied that the life span of all of the bulbs claimed is well longer than this tenancy; the tenant’s tenancy being for around 20 months. The primary purpose of awarding compensation is to fairly compensate losses that have been suffered. In this instance I find it reasonable that the light bulbs have failed due to wear and tear that occurred prior to the tenancy as well as during the tenancy. As a result compensation of $70 being the reasonable cost of 9 LED bulbs is awarded.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Carpet repair: There was a burn hole in the carpet in the main bedroom.
Replacement of hard flooring upstairs and downstairs: I am satisfied from the evidence that both floors were water damaged during the tenancy. The damage upstairs was significant and affected wall areas as well as the floor in the area around the fridge. The downstairs floor was damaged by the sliding door. Regardless of whether the damage caused to both floors was careless or intentional the tenant is liable for the landlord’s insurance excess.
Garage Door: The garage door was dented in a number of areas, including at around tow bar/bumper height. The mechanism that raises and lowers the door by the remote was broken. The landlord is seeking their insurance excess. I find this was intentional damage due to the number of dents on the doors. Regardless of whether it is intentional or careless damage the landlord is entitled to the insurance excess.
Broken Glass: The glass in the pane where the cat door is installed is broken and requires replacing.
Door Latches: Two door latches were missing and required replacing.
I am satisfied that all the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord has been successful in the claim the filing fee is reimbursed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4508590 — net $3,031.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 December 2022	$1,935.00	Rent arrears to 26 December 2022
Lock/key replacement	$23.87	Lock/key replacement
Deck Cleaning	$168.00	Deck Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment	$945.96	Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Smoke alarm	$6.79	Smoke alarm
Light Bulbs	$70.00	Light Bulbs
Lawns and Garden work	$59.94	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet repairs	$120.00	Carpet repairs
Replacement of upstairs hard flooring - excess	$550.00	Replacement of upstairs hard flooring - excess
Replacement of downstairs hard flooring - excess	$550.00	Replacement of downstairs hard flooring - excess
Replacement of garage door - excess	$400.00	Replacement of garage door - excess
Window repairs	$313.77	Window repairs
Repairs to door latches	$17.90	Repairs to door latches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,031.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,031.67

Claims and awards for application 4508590 — net $3,031.67 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 26 December 2022

Amount: $1,935.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 26 December 2022

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $23.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Deck Cleaning

Amount: $168.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Deck Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment

Amount: $945.96
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment

Cleaning

Amount: $650.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rlett Hoeta must pay M H Realty Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Stephanie Shaw $3,031.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6235021-014) to M H Realty Limited T/A Bayleys As Agent For Stephanie Shaw immediately.

Reasons

The property manager and the landlord (owner) attended the hearing, but the tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises are large, containing five bedrooms, a large rumpus room, 4.5 bathrooms and decks on both the top and ground floors. The tenancy started on 6 April 2021 and ended on 26 December 2022. The tenancy agreement recorded that the tenants were able to have two small dogs at the premises, however there is evidence that a large dog was also at the premises.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 December 2022 as a result of the tenant giving the landlord notice. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: a) The deck: The deck had a number of marks and stains that required cleaning; b) Carpet cleaning and flea treatment: The carpet was stained and required cleaning. There were fleas in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The carpet was commercially cleaned by a contractor who also carried out a flea treatment on the carpet at a total cost of $750.00. There was evidence that the tenant used flea bombs in the premises at the end of the tenancy however the premises were infested when the landlord took possession. The landlord used three flea bombs (at a cost of $42.00) but that did not eliminate the fleas. The landlord then sprayed Ripcord (two 500ml bottles of Ripcord concentrate at a cost of $153.96) in the house to eliminate the fleas, but the fleas remained. A flea treatment was then carried out by the carpet cleaner which eradicated the fleas. I am satisfied that there was a severe flea infestation and the costs of the treatment and carpet cleaning are in keeping with the size of the house. The total cost of the carpet clean and the flea treatments is awarded. c) Cleaning: The landlord claims $800.00 for cleaning. The premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required by the RTA. However having considered all of the evidence, including photographs, I find $650.00 is a reasonable cost to clean the premises to the standard required. d) Garden Work: The gardens required weeding.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace a smoke alarm.
Lightbulbs: The landlord claims $216.87 to replace lightbulbs on the basis that 9 were missing and the remainder claimed were not working. The claim includes 22 LED bulbs, 2 LED spots, 1 heat lamp, and 2 halogen bulbs. LEDs are the longest-lasting light bulbs, working for years longer than their counterparts. Halogen light bulbs in comparison have a far shorter life albeit longer than an incandescent bulb.
The landlord gave evidence that the lights were all working at the outset of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was required to keep the lightbulbs in working order during the tenancy. This is not determinative of the issue, as section 11 of the RTA provides that any agreement that is inconsistent with the Act is of no effect. Prior decisions of the Tribunal have awarded costs standard incandescent lightbulbs, but have not consistently awarded costs for longer-lasting lightbulbs. Arguably, lightbulbs could be regarded as a maintenance item, the responsibility of the landlord.
In this instance while light bulbs failed during the tenancy I am satisfied that the life span of all of the bulbs claimed is well longer than this tenancy; the tenant’s tenancy being for around 20 months. The primary purpose of awarding compensation is to fairly compensate losses that have been suffered. In this instance I find it reasonable that the light bulbs have failed due to wear and tear that occurred prior to the tenancy as well as during the tenancy. As a result compensation of $70 being the reasonable cost of 9 LED bulbs is awarded.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Carpet repair: There was a burn hole in the carpet in the main bedroom.
Replacement of hard flooring upstairs and downstairs: I am satisfied from the evidence that both floors were water damaged during the tenancy. The damage upstairs was significant and affected wall areas as well as the floor in the area around the fridge. The downstairs floor was damaged by the sliding door. Regardless of whether the damage caused to both floors was careless or intentional the tenant is liable for the landlord’s insurance excess.
Garage Door: The garage door was dented in a number of areas, including at around tow bar/bumper height. The mechanism that raises and lowers the door by the remote was broken. The landlord is seeking their insurance excess. I find this was intentional damage due to the number of dents on the doors. Regardless of whether it is intentional or careless damage the landlord is entitled to the insurance excess.
Broken Glass: The glass in the pane where the cat door is installed is broken and requires replacing.
Door Latches: Two door latches were missing and required replacing.
I am satisfied that all the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord has been successful in the claim the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4508590 — Property damage at 66 Wharekaho Road, Wharekaho, RD 2, Whitianga 3592

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4508590 — Property damage at 66 Wharekaho Road, Wharekaho, RD 2, Whitianga 3592

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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