What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541189 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4541189?

Car Park Remote: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $79.50 awarded to landlord; Marble Table Tops: $3,082.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Received: $4,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $639.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $649.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $341.80 awarded to landlord; Mirror: $2,127.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541189?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9509109-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541189 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4541189?

Car Park Remote: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $79.50 awarded to landlord; Marble Table Tops: $3,082.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Received: $4,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $639.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $649.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $341.80 awarded to landlord; Mirror: $2,127.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541189?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9509109-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2A2, 148 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4541189 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 2A2, 148 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4541189 — 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 4541189 — net $7,153.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cabinet replacement	$4,140.00		Cabinet replacement
Marble table tops	$3,082.00		Marble table tops
Repairs: Mirror	$2,127.50		Repairs: Mirror
Rug replacement	$639.00		Rug replacement
Repairs: Fridge repairs	$341.80		Repairs: Fridge repairs
Stereo replacement	$649.00		Stereo replacement
Light bulbs/batteries	$79.50		Light bulbs/batteries
Car park remote	$109.25		Car park remote
Cleaning	$240.00		Cleaning
Dry cleaning mattress protector	$25.00		Dry cleaning mattress protector
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Payment received		$4,300.00	Payment received
Total award	$11,453.49	$4,300.00
Net award	$7,153.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,153.49

Claims and awards for application 4541189 — net $7,153.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cabinet replacement

Amount: $4,140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cabinet replacement

Marble table tops

Amount: $3,082.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Marble table tops

Repairs: Mirror

Amount: $2,127.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Mirror

Rug replacement

Amount: $639.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rug replacement

Repairs: Fridge repairs

Amount: $341.80
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Fridge repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Hayden Aull must pay [The landlord/s] $7,153.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The application was served on the tenant in accordance with section 91A(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Background
The tenancy began on 1 October 2020 and ended on 7 October 2021.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant owed four weeks of rent arrears and agreed for this amount to be covered by the release of the bond to the landlord. The bond has been released for this.
Also, at the end of the tenancy there was significant damage to the premises and to chattels as well as some cleaning. The tenant agreed to make payment toward the damage and cleaning and did so up until the end of 2022. He paid $4,300.00 toward the costs. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for the outstanding amount owed for the costs of damage and cleaning.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not return one of the carpark remotes.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: built in cabinet, two marble table tops. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken door mirror, damaged rug, damaged fridge, damaged stereo. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name.

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 4541189 — net $7,153.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cabinet replacement	$4,140.00		Cabinet replacement
Marble table tops	$3,082.00		Marble table tops
Repairs: Mirror	$2,127.50		Repairs: Mirror
Rug replacement	$639.00		Rug replacement
Repairs: Fridge repairs	$341.80		Repairs: Fridge repairs
Stereo replacement	$649.00		Stereo replacement
Light bulbs/batteries	$79.50		Light bulbs/batteries
Car park remote	$109.25		Car park remote
Cleaning	$240.00		Cleaning
Dry cleaning mattress protector	$25.00		Dry cleaning mattress protector
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Payment received		$4,300.00	Payment received
Total award	$11,453.49	$4,300.00
Net award	$7,153.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,153.49

Claims and awards for application 4541189 — net $7,153.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cabinet replacement

Amount: $4,140.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cabinet replacement

Marble table tops

Amount: $3,082.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Marble table tops

Repairs: Mirror

Amount: $2,127.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Mirror

Rug replacement

Amount: $639.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rug replacement

Repairs: Fridge repairs

Amount: $341.80
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Fridge repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Hayden Aull must pay [The landlord/s] $7,153.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The application was served on the tenant in accordance with section 91A(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Background
The tenancy began on 1 October 2020 and ended on 7 October 2021.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant owed four weeks of rent arrears and agreed for this amount to be covered by the release of the bond to the landlord. The bond has been released for this.
Also, at the end of the tenancy there was significant damage to the premises and to chattels as well as some cleaning. The tenant agreed to make payment toward the damage and cleaning and did so up until the end of 2022. He paid $4,300.00 toward the costs. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for the outstanding amount owed for the costs of damage and cleaning.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not return one of the carpark remotes.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: built in cabinet, two marble table tops. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken door mirror, damaged rug, damaged fridge, damaged stereo. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541189 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2A2, 148 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541189 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2A2, 148 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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

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

Frequently asked questions