What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4546751?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4546751?

Cleaning: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4511989 D…: $2,948.15 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe…: $289.28 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Broken shower h…: $41.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $225.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546751?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9488835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4546751?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4546751?

Cleaning: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4511989 D…: $2,948.15 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe…: $289.28 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Broken shower h…: $41.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $225.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546751?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9488835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3J, 17 Crown Lynn Place, New Lynn, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4546751 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546751 — net $3,857.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4511989 dated 28/03/2023	$2,948.15	Previous order application 4511989 dated 28/03/2023
Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe (45	$289.28	Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe (45
Replace furnishings: Broken shower holder (45	$41.20	Replace furnishings: Broken shower holder (45
Cleaning	$333.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$225.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,857.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,857.57

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Reece Toia Sarich must pay Kim Ong and Daniel Mueller $3,816.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4511989 dated 28/03/2023$2,948.15 Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe (45%) Replace furnishings: Broken shower holder (45%) $289.28 $41.20 Cleaning$333.50 Rubbish removal$225.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,857.57 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,857.57

Reasons

Mr Mueller appeared as the landlord. Mr Mueller also appeared on behalf of Ms Ong who is the co-landlord.
The tenant did not appear. I understand the tenant did not attend the termination of the tenancy hearing on 28 March 2023. The file number for the previous hearing is 4511989.
The bond was refunded to the landlord in full per the Tenancy Tribunal Order 4511989 dated 28 March 2023.
The landlord has applied for utility arrears, compensation, and filing fee reimbursement following the tenancy's end.

How much is owed for utility?

The tenancy ended on 6 March 2023. The landlord provided a utility invoice between 28 February 2023 and 6 April 2023.
I asked the landlord if he could tell me the utility usage between 28 February 2023 and 6 March 2023. The landlord told me he was unable to.
Accordingly, because the landlord could not prove the utility usage between 28 February 2023 and 6 March 2023, I decline to award compensation for utility.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence to prove the tenant left items in the house and did not clean the house when he left the premises on 6 March 2023.
After careful consideration, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and failed to remove all rubbish.
It is worth noting that the landlord's application stated that the cost of rubbish removal was $225. However, the evidence submitted by the landlord showed that they had paid $327.75. Despite this discrepancy, the landlord did not explain the difference.
At the end of the hearing, the landlord confirmed that there were no other issues to raise. Therefore, compensation for the rubbish removal will be awarded based on the amount stated in the original application.
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: a. Broken bedframe; and b. Broken shower holder. Broken bedframe
The landlord had taken pre-tenancy photos of the property showing that the bedframe was in reasonable condition and considered to be in good shape.
However, post-tenancy inspection photos revealed that the bedframe was broken after the tenant moved out. I find that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant could not prove that they were not liable for the damage.
The new bedframe is a Reno queen-size bed with six drawers. The broken bedframe did not have six drawers.
I consider 45% of the total invoice value reasonable.
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. Broken shower holder
The landlord provided sufficient evidence to prove that the shower holder was broken during the tenancy.
I consider 45% of the total invoice value to be reasonable
Accordingly. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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. New mattress protector
This mattress protector was not on the mattress when the tenant moved in.
I decline to compensate the landlord for a new mattress protector. Filing fee
Because Kim Ong, Daniel Mueller has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4546751 — net $3,857.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4511989 dated 28/03/2023	$2,948.15	Previous order application 4511989 dated 28/03/2023
Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe (45	$289.28	Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe (45
Replace furnishings: Broken shower holder (45	$41.20	Replace furnishings: Broken shower holder (45
Cleaning	$333.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$225.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,857.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,857.57

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Reece Toia Sarich must pay Kim Ong and Daniel Mueller $3,816.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4511989 dated 28/03/2023$2,948.15 Replace furnishings: Broken bedframe (45%) Replace furnishings: Broken shower holder (45%) $289.28 $41.20 Cleaning$333.50 Rubbish removal$225.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,857.57 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,857.57

Reasons

Mr Mueller appeared as the landlord. Mr Mueller also appeared on behalf of Ms Ong who is the co-landlord.
The tenant did not appear. I understand the tenant did not attend the termination of the tenancy hearing on 28 March 2023. The file number for the previous hearing is 4511989.
The bond was refunded to the landlord in full per the Tenancy Tribunal Order 4511989 dated 28 March 2023.
The landlord has applied for utility arrears, compensation, and filing fee reimbursement following the tenancy's end.

How much is owed for utility?

The tenancy ended on 6 March 2023. The landlord provided a utility invoice between 28 February 2023 and 6 April 2023.
I asked the landlord if he could tell me the utility usage between 28 February 2023 and 6 March 2023. The landlord told me he was unable to.
Accordingly, because the landlord could not prove the utility usage between 28 February 2023 and 6 March 2023, I decline to award compensation for utility.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence to prove the tenant left items in the house and did not clean the house when he left the premises on 6 March 2023.
After careful consideration, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and failed to remove all rubbish.
It is worth noting that the landlord's application stated that the cost of rubbish removal was $225. However, the evidence submitted by the landlord showed that they had paid $327.75. Despite this discrepancy, the landlord did not explain the difference.
At the end of the hearing, the landlord confirmed that there were no other issues to raise. Therefore, compensation for the rubbish removal will be awarded based on the amount stated in the original application.
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: a. Broken bedframe; and b. Broken shower holder. Broken bedframe
The landlord had taken pre-tenancy photos of the property showing that the bedframe was in reasonable condition and considered to be in good shape.
However, post-tenancy inspection photos revealed that the bedframe was broken after the tenant moved out. I find that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant could not prove that they were not liable for the damage.
The new bedframe is a Reno queen-size bed with six drawers. The broken bedframe did not have six drawers.
I consider 45% of the total invoice value reasonable.
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. Broken shower holder
The landlord provided sufficient evidence to prove that the shower holder was broken during the tenancy.
I consider 45% of the total invoice value to be reasonable
Accordingly. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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. New mattress protector
This mattress protector was not on the mattress when the tenant moved in.
I decline to compensate the landlord for a new mattress protector. Filing fee
Because Kim Ong, Daniel Mueller has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546751 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3J, 17 Crown Lynn Place, New Lynn, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4546751 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3J, 17 Crown Lynn Place, New Lynn, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for utility?

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

How much is owed for utility?

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