What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641909?

The tribunal order states: Ramon Stafford must pay Peter Sing Gee Huang $1,390.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4641909?

Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $390.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641909?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9716859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641909?

The tribunal order states: Ramon Stafford must pay Peter Sing Gee Huang $1,390.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4641909?

Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $390.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641909?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9716859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

112 Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4641909 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641909 — net $1,390.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire	$390.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire
Cleaning and labour for rubbish removal	$700.00	Cleaning and labour for rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$1,390.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,390.00

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 Landlord stated that there was a lot of rubbish left behind and the property looked like it had not been cleaned in the six years the Tenant lived there. The Landlord, his wife and son spent forty hours cleaning the kitchen, floors, ceilings, oven, walls and rangehood. There were a lot of cockroaches present.

The Landlord claimed cleaning for forty hours and a total charge of $1200.00. They provided photographs which showed rubbish left behind in and outside the property, dirty floors, dirty kitchen walls, cobwebs on windows, dirty kitchen shelving and dirty bathroom surfaces. There was no invoice provided by the Landlord for the cleaning but an invoice was provided for the skip bin hire.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord did not provide an invoice for the cleaning or labour to remove the rubbish nor did they provide photographs of all of the rooms in the house which required cleaning. I find a more reasonable amount for the cleaning and rubbish removal labour from the photographs provided would be to award the Landlord $700.00. This would be for a standard cleaning rate of $40.00 per hour at 12 hours. The amount claimed for the skip bin hire is proved.

The Landlord claimed they had to hire a rug doctor to remove dog urine from the carpet throughout the house because the Tenant had a pet. There was also dog hairs all over the carpet which required removal. The Landlord did not provide any receipt for the rug doctor and the photographs provided of the urine stains and dog hair were not clear.

For this reason, the claim is dismissed by the Landlord.

The landlord claimed for mowing the lawns and removing the weeds which they attended to themselves. Photographs were provided of overgrown grass and weeds.

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: damage to glass windows, damage to bathroom tiles, damage to kitchen cabinet and damage to garage door.

Garage door- The Landlord claimed $650.00 to repair the garage door which failed to open automatically. The Landlord was notified of this issue by the Tenant in May 2023. The door had been serviced around 2021 and the Landlord suspected that someone had forced the garage door up without using a remote. The motor was not turning. The Landlord provided an invoice dated 2 May 2014 confirming the door was serviced then. There was no invoice to prove the new cost to repair was $650.00 or to prove what caused the damage to the door.

In considering this claim, the Landlord has failed to show that the cause of the damage was more than fair wear and tear. There is no invoice to prove the repair costs, the cause of the damage from an expert or when the door was serviced last. There was also no evidence to prove the door was actually damaged for example, a notification from the Tenant or an enquiry the Landlord made with the garage specialists. For this reason the claim is dismissed.

Glass window- The Landlord claimed $500.00 for the repair of a glass window however at the hearing, submitted that this was part of the next claim for glass window repairs. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Glass window- The Landlord claimed $651.99 to repair the kitchen window, downstairs window and sliding door window in the kitchen. The Landlord submitted the Tenant notified him of the damage and promised he would repair it but never did. The Landlord provided an invoice for the repair but no photographs of the sliding door window and no clear photographs of the downstairs window. They also did not provide a clear ingoing inspection report or photographs to prove that these windows were in good condition when the Tenant moved in. The writing on the inspection report was faded so it was unclear to see whether they were in reasonable condition or whether this was all caused by fair wear and tear.

In considering the evidence, without any proof of an ingoing inspection report or photographs to show the condition of the windows at the start of the tenancy, there is no way to prove the Tenant caused these damages.

For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

The Landlord claimed $1800.00 to repair the ‘shower room’, kitchen cabinet and doors. They claimed the Tenant had broken all of the tiles in the bathroom, the towel rail had come off the wall and the shower door required sealing. There was also holes everywhere in the walls and doors of the house which the landlord had fixed. Photographs were provided of the wall above the bath which showed some broken tiles. There were also a few broken tiles on the sink. There was no ingoing inspection report to confirm this damage was caused during the tenancy. The invoice provided was also unclear. It did not breakdown exactly how much the repair for the shower room, kitchen cabinet and doors cost separately.

The Landlord estimated it cost $1000.00 to fix the kitchen cabinet and $200.00 to install a new ‘shower room’. There was little detail given regarding the shower room installation, doors that required repairing and shower room installation. Photographs filed after the hearing showed some doors which had holes in them which presumably is what the landlord was referring to.

In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide evidence to show that the tiles, the kitchen cabinet and the shower room were in good condition before the Tenant moved into the house because the ingoing inspection report was unclear. The invoice also did not state how much was claimed for each repair. Although there were photographs provided of the damaged tiles, there was nothing to show why the whole shower box required replacement.

For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

As the Landlord has not been substantially successful in this claim, name suppression is not granted and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641909 — net $1,390.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire	$390.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire
Cleaning and labour for rubbish removal	$700.00	Cleaning and labour for rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$1,390.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,390.00

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

For this reason, the claim is dismissed by the Landlord.

The landlord claimed for mowing the lawns and removing the weeds which they attended to themselves. Photographs were provided of overgrown grass and weeds.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to glass windows, damage to bathroom tiles, damage to kitchen cabinet and damage to garage door.

For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

As the Landlord has not been substantially successful in this claim, name suppression is not granted and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641909 — Tenancy dispute at 112 Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641909 — Tenancy dispute at 112 Point View Drive, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

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