How much money was awarded in case 4621509?

Cleaning: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $518.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,067.73 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door And Door Frame: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Walls And Paint: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Power Points: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9472908-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4621509?

Cleaning: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $518.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,067.73 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door And Door Frame: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Walls And Paint: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Power Points: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9472908-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4621509 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4621509 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621509 — net $7,346.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 19.6.23	$1,067.73	Rent arrears as at 19.6.23
Cleaning	$1,600.00	Cleaning
Repairs: interior walls and paint	$1,000.00	Repairs: interior walls and paint
Repairs: bathroom door	$190.00	Repairs: bathroom door
Repairs: bedroom door and door frame	$130.00	Repairs: bedroom door and door frame
Repairs: power points	$330.00	Repairs: power points
Lawns and Garden work: End of tenancy	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work: End of tenancy
Rubbish removal	$4,000.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$518.50	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work: breach notice	$650.00	Lawns and Garden work: breach notice
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$7,346.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,346.67

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Maraea Marara Kirimanu Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $7,346.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.

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 background to this matter is that this tenancy has been the subject of a prior hearing. The landlord sought an order for termination on the basis of the tenant allegedly having three dogs at the property and the premises not being clean and tidy, in view of the amount of rubbish dumped over the exterior of the property and the state of the lawn and garden.

The Tribunal declined to terminate on that occasion but the tenant was ordered to mow the lawns and remove all exterior rubbish by a set date, which was not done. As a result of the tenant’s failure to comply with that order, the landlord incurred costs in attending to these actions itself in the sum of $650. I find that the tenant must pay the landlord $650 in relation to that default.

According to the landlord, following this order, there was a noticeable downslide in the tenant’s efforts to maintain the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. More rubbish was dumped on the exterior and, it is clear, when comparing inspections undertaken on the property in early 2023 and the exit inspection, that the property has suffered a significant amount of damage and deterioration in that time.

Photographs of the property taken at exit clearly show that the premises were filthy at that time, with no attempt having been made to undertake any cleaning.

The landlord’s contractor charged the landlord $1600 for what is described on the invoice as “deep cleaning”. Typically, a tenant would not be liable for a “deep clean” but here, the relevant description records there was human blood and a dead animal body located at the premises. I am satisfied that the full $1600 claimed was a reasonable charge for the work that was required to put the property back in a reasonable condition, in the circumstances of this case. The tenant must pay the sum to the landlord.

The landlord is claiming $4000 for rubbish removal charges for both the exterior and the interior. The photographs that I was shown satisfy me that this charge was appropriate. The landlord said it took the landlord’s contractor five days of work with three people working on the job, due to the sheer extent of the rubbish. Human waste was included in the rubbish. A number of skips were brought to the property and taken away to the dump. The photographs show numerous belongings and rubbish strewn throughout the house and around the exterior of the property. These belongings include many mechanical and motorbike parts. Although on the high side, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, this was a reasonable charge.

Once all the rubbish was removed, the landlord incurred costs in the sum of $750 in lawn mowing and removal of grass. Based on the photographs I have seen I believe this charge was excessive for the work required. Instead, I have allowed $200.

In relation to the locks, I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was necessary to have the locks changed when the tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered above is proven.

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.

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.

Photographs produced by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show a number of holes in the walls that were not there at the outset. The landlord incurred costs in filling in these holes and then repainting them. The landlord has claimed $1200 for the cost of repairing the internal walls and an additional $2500 for painting. I am not prepared to allow the landlord the full amount of these charges, which are not reasonable, but I will allow the landlord $1000 for the cost of repairing the walls and any touch ups for painting. This also includes compensation for painting over two murals on the walls. The damage is clearly more than fair, wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I am satisfied that the following additional damage was caused by the tenant, and I have allowed the sums order above by way of compensation: a)removal of the bathroom door b)repairs to bedroom doorframe c)repairs to power points.

The amounts ordered are proved. I have not ordered recovery of the full amount sought it is because I find the full charges not to be reasonable.

In making these orders, 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.

The balance of the claims are dismissed on the basis they are unproven.

Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621509 — net $7,346.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 19.6.23	$1,067.73	Rent arrears as at 19.6.23
Cleaning	$1,600.00	Cleaning
Repairs: interior walls and paint	$1,000.00	Repairs: interior walls and paint
Repairs: bathroom door	$190.00	Repairs: bathroom door
Repairs: bedroom door and door frame	$130.00	Repairs: bedroom door and door frame
Repairs: power points	$330.00	Repairs: power points
Lawns and Garden work: End of tenancy	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work: End of tenancy
Rubbish removal	$4,000.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$518.50	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work: breach notice	$650.00	Lawns and Garden work: breach notice
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$7,346.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,346.67

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Maraea Marara Kirimanu Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $7,346.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.

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 background to this matter is that this tenancy has been the subject of a prior hearing. The landlord sought an order for termination on the basis of the tenant allegedly having three dogs at the property and the premises not being clean and tidy, in view of the amount of rubbish dumped over the exterior of the property and the state of the lawn and garden.
The Tribunal declined to terminate on that occasion but the tenant was ordered to mow the lawns and remove all exterior rubbish by a set date, which was not done. As a result of the tenant’s failure to comply with that order, the landlord incurred costs in attending to these actions itself in the sum of $650. I find that the tenant must pay the landlord $650 in relation to that default.
According to the landlord, following this order, there was a noticeable downslide in the tenant’s efforts to maintain the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. More rubbish was dumped on the exterior and, it is clear, when comparing inspections undertaken on the property in early 2023 and the exit inspection, that the property has suffered a significant amount of damage and deterioration in that time.
Photographs of the property taken at exit clearly show that the premises were filthy at that time, with no attempt having been made to undertake any cleaning.
The landlord’s contractor charged the landlord $1600 for what is described on the invoice as “deep cleaning”. Typically, a tenant would not be liable for a “deep clean” but here, the relevant description records there was human blood and a dead animal body located at the premises. I am satisfied that the full $1600 claimed was a reasonable charge for the work that was required to put the property back in a reasonable condition, in the circumstances of this case. The tenant must pay the sum to the landlord.
The landlord is claiming $4000 for rubbish removal charges for both the exterior and the interior. The photographs that I was shown satisfy me that this charge was appropriate. The landlord said it took the landlord’s contractor five days of work with three people working on the job, due to the sheer extent of the rubbish. Human waste was included in the rubbish. A number of skips were brought to the property and taken away to the dump. The photographs show numerous belongings and rubbish strewn throughout the house and around the exterior of the property. These belongings include many mechanical and motorbike parts. Although on the high side, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, this was a reasonable charge.
Once all the rubbish was removed, the landlord incurred costs in the sum of $750 in lawn mowing and removal of grass. Based on the photographs I have seen I believe this charge was excessive for the work required. Instead, I have allowed $200.
In relation to the locks, I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was necessary to have the locks changed when the tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered above is proven.

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.
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.
Photographs produced by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show a number of holes in the walls that were not there at the outset. The landlord incurred costs in filling in these holes and then repainting them. The landlord has claimed $1200 for the cost of repairing the internal walls and an additional $2500 for painting. I am not prepared to allow the landlord the full amount of these charges, which are not reasonable, but I will allow the landlord $1000 for the cost of repairing the walls and any touch ups for painting. This also includes compensation for painting over two murals on the walls. The damage is clearly more than fair, wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that the following additional damage was caused by the tenant, and I have allowed the sums order above by way of compensation: a)removal of the bathroom door b)repairs to bedroom doorframe c)repairs to power points.
The amounts ordered are proved. I have not ordered recovery of the full amount sought it is because I find the full charges not to be reasonable.
In making these orders, 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.
The balance of the claims are dismissed on the basis they are unproven.
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621509 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621509 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions