What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4548549?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4548549?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,741.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,483.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,110.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548549?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369861-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4548549?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4548549?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,741.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,483.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,110.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548549?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369861-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

420A Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4548549 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4548549 — net $1,967.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 March 2023	$1,741.43	2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of t…
Water rates	$1,110.19	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$1,483.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$862.50	Cleaning
Pest control	$460.00	Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$1,967.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,967.62

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kahurangi Rikky Motu and Anihera Dallas Motu must pay Pro Management (Auckland) Limited As Agent For Lingyue Kong $1,967.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,920.00 (6044923-006) to Pro Management (Auckland) Limited As Agent For Lingyue Kong immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on 5 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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. 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, and did not remove all rubbish. The property comprised of three bedrooms and a two bedroom sleepout. The Landlord submitted the walls, bathroom, kitchen, floors and cupboards required cleaning. There were dishes in the sink and food perishables, bags of clothing, toys and cleaning products left behind. The Landlord claimed $1500.00 for three people working over two days to clean the property. Photographs and an invoice was provided.
In perusing the evidence however, the property did not appear to be in such a state that would require two days of cleaning. The photographs did not indicate the property was excessively dirty or filled with rubbish. For this reason, I find the appropriate amount to award is $750.00.
The Landlord claimed for rubbish removal. Photographs were provided of rubbish which included mattresses, couches, boxes of rubbish, bags of clothing, toys and food. There was also photographs of rubbish in the initial inspection which was located under and outside the house. An invoice was provided for the rubbish removal and labour. The amount ordered is proved.
The Landlord claimed for carpet cleaning. The Tenants had a dog on the property so professional cleaning was required for the carpets. The amount ordered is 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: Damage to the walls, damage to door and door frames, damage to the aluminium window and damage to the carpet in the sleep out.
The landlord provided exit inspection reports which showed all of the damage except the aluminium window. An invoice for the repairs and an assortment of ingoing inspection photographs were provided. The Landlord submitted the carpet was ruined by the Tenants dog. The front door was damaged by the Tenants forcing it open and the Tenants promised to repair it.
The ingoing inspection photographs were not taken of the walls, doors, door frames, window and carpet where the damage was specifically located. There were ingoing photographs of stained carpet however the photographs did not indicate whether this was the carpet in the sleepout or in the house to provide a comparison. The Landlord also submitted they were not in the practice of taking photographs of every part of the property for initial inspection reports as this was excessive and unnecessary. The issue with this however, is there is no proof that the Tenant caused this damage during the tenancy. The Landlord also submitted an email where the Tenant acknowledged that they were careless and caused damages which they did not repair. An email of 22 February 2023 however noted the Tenant stating: “This house wasn't even in that much of a good condition to be honest Johnson, but we'll do our best to clean the property before we go.
In considering the evidence, without any specific evidence from the ingoing inspection report of the damage, there is no proof that the damage was not present when the Tenant moved in and what damage they were taking responsibility for. The Tenant also indicated the house was not in good condition which suggests some damage may have been present before the Tenants moved in. For these reasons, the claims are dismissed. Pest Control
The Landlord submitted the property required pest control for fleas as they were bitten when they attended the final property inspection. The Owner was also bitten by fleas. An invoice was provided and the amounts ordered are proved.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful in their claim, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.
As name suppression was not requested by the Landlord, this has not been granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4548549 — net $1,967.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 March 2023	$1,741.43	2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of t…
Water rates	$1,110.19	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$1,483.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$862.50	Cleaning
Pest control	$460.00	Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$1,967.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,967.62

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kahurangi Rikky Motu and Anihera Dallas Motu must pay Pro Management (Auckland) Limited As Agent For Lingyue Kong $1,967.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,920.00 (6044923-006) to Pro Management (Auckland) Limited As Agent For Lingyue Kong immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on 5 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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. 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, and did not remove all rubbish. The property comprised of three bedrooms and a two bedroom sleepout. The Landlord submitted the walls, bathroom, kitchen, floors and cupboards required cleaning. There were dishes in the sink and food perishables, bags of clothing, toys and cleaning products left behind. The Landlord claimed $1500.00 for three people working over two days to clean the property. Photographs and an invoice was provided.
In perusing the evidence however, the property did not appear to be in such a state that would require two days of cleaning. The photographs did not indicate the property was excessively dirty or filled with rubbish. For this reason, I find the appropriate amount to award is $750.00.
The Landlord claimed for rubbish removal. Photographs were provided of rubbish which included mattresses, couches, boxes of rubbish, bags of clothing, toys and food. There was also photographs of rubbish in the initial inspection which was located under and outside the house. An invoice was provided for the rubbish removal and labour. The amount ordered is proved.
The Landlord claimed for carpet cleaning. The Tenants had a dog on the property so professional cleaning was required for the carpets. The amount ordered is 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: Damage to the walls, damage to door and door frames, damage to the aluminium window and damage to the carpet in the sleep out.
The landlord provided exit inspection reports which showed all of the damage except the aluminium window. An invoice for the repairs and an assortment of ingoing inspection photographs were provided. The Landlord submitted the carpet was ruined by the Tenants dog. The front door was damaged by the Tenants forcing it open and the Tenants promised to repair it.
The ingoing inspection photographs were not taken of the walls, doors, door frames, window and carpet where the damage was specifically located. There were ingoing photographs of stained carpet however the photographs did not indicate whether this was the carpet in the sleepout or in the house to provide a comparison. The Landlord also submitted they were not in the practice of taking photographs of every part of the property for initial inspection reports as this was excessive and unnecessary. The issue with this however, is there is no proof that the Tenant caused this damage during the tenancy. The Landlord also submitted an email where the Tenant acknowledged that they were careless and caused damages which they did not repair. An email of 22 February 2023 however noted the Tenant stating: “This house wasn't even in that much of a good condition to be honest Johnson, but we'll do our best to clean the property before we go.
In considering the evidence, without any specific evidence from the ingoing inspection report of the damage, there is no proof that the damage was not present when the Tenant moved in and what damage they were taking responsibility for. The Tenant also indicated the house was not in good condition which suggests some damage may have been present before the Tenants moved in. For these reasons, the claims are dismissed. Pest Control
The Landlord submitted the property required pest control for fleas as they were bitten when they attended the final property inspection. The Owner was also bitten by fleas. An invoice was provided and the amounts ordered are proved.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful in their claim, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.
As name suppression was not requested by the Landlord, this has not been granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548549 — Rent arrears at 420A Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548549 — Rent arrears at 420A Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

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 and water rates arrears?

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