What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4643229?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4643229?

Cleaning: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing During Tenancy: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Locksmith Work: $336.65 awarded to landlord; Minus Rent Credit: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4614689 D…: $3,426.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $339.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $41.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $281.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9495762-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4643229?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4643229?

Cleaning: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing During Tenancy: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Locksmith Work: $336.65 awarded to landlord; Minus Rent Credit: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4614689 D…: $3,426.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $339.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $41.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $281.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9495762-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Karaka Street, Helensville, Helensville 0800 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4643229 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643229 — net $1,908.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4614689 dated	$3,426.43		Previous order application 4614689 dated
Lawn mowing during tenancy	$70.00		Lawn mowing during tenancy
Locksmith work	$336.65		Locksmith work
Cleaning and removing goods	$724.50		Cleaning and removing goods
Repair wall holes	$339.25		Repair wall holes
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00		Lawns and Garden work
Curtain rod replacement	$41.76		Curtain rod replacement
Curtain replacement	$57.98		Curtain replacement
Rubbish removal	$281.75		Rubbish removal
Minus rent credit		$1,170.00	Minus rent credit
Total award	$5,418.32	$1,170.00
Net award	$1,908.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,908.32

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Holly Elizabeth Victoria Fraser must pay The Difference Limited T/As Harcourts Helensville As Agent For Mikito Kojima $1,908.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (3415518-007) to The Difference Limited T/As Harcourts Helensville As Agent For Mikito Kojima immediately.
The Difference Limited T/As Harcourts Helensville As Agent For Mikito Kojima must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on 16 August 2023 (application 4614689). The adjudicator notes that calls to the tenant for the hearing were unsuccessful. The adjudicator was satisfied the tenant had abandoned the premises, therefore ordered termination of the tenancy immediately, and ordered the tenant to pay $3,426.43 in rent arrears.
The landlord now returns to the Tribunal seeking further orders following possession of the tenancy returning to the landlord. That relates to compensation and disposal of tenant goods.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In relation to the cleaning and rubbish removal claims, the RTA requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
I will now proceed to consider the landlords claims. Previous order
The Tribunal has previously ordered rent arrears be paid. It is sensible that that earlier order be combined into this order for enforcement purposes. For completeness if the landlord wishes to enforce an order, it is only this order that should be enforced. Rent credit
While it is not a claim as such, the landlord reports that after the tenancy had ended, further rent payments were received, and they are treated as a rent credit in this order. Lawn mowing during tenancy
The landlord reports that during the tenancy, the tenant requested the landlord to mow the lawns for her. Lawns are normally the responsibility of the tenant, so it is reasonable that the cost of that work be ordered to be paid by the tenant. Locksmith work
During the tenancy the landlord found the tenancy unlocked, and could not contact the tenant. The landlord incurred locksmith costs in securing the tenancy. There is an obligation on the tenant to ensure the premises are maintained securely. It is reasonable that the tenant reimburse the landlord this cost. Cleaning and storing goods
The photographs show the tenancy to be unclean at the end of the tenancy, and that there were extensive goods left by the tenant. The tenant was required to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove her goods. The costs claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy seem reasonable in the circumstances, and are ordered in full. Wall repair
The evidence is that during the tenancy a hole was made in a wall. This is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the hole was anything other than careless or intentional damage. The amount claimed seems reasonable and is ordered in full. Lawn and garden work
At the end of the tenancy the lawns and gardens were extensively overgrown. The tenant is liable to pay for the work needed to return the lawns and gardens to a state of being reasonably tidy. This claim is ordered in full. Curtain rod and curtain replacement
At the end of the tenancy the landlord needed to replace a broken curtain rod, and replace a missing curtain. The tenant was required to return all chattels provided to her at the start of the tenancy. This claim is ordered in full. Lawn work during tenancy
There was a further lawn work claim of $180.00 during the tenancy. The landlord confirmed that this work was undertaken without the tenants request, or order of the Tribunal. I am not persuaded there is a legal obligation on the tenant to pay for this work, so this claim is declined. Rubbish removal
Extensive rubbish was left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is liable for the rubbish removal. Disposal of tenant goods
The landlord has applied for disposal of tenant goods left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. It is not practicable for the landlord to return those goods to the tenant. The landlord may dispose of the goods as the landlord sees fit. I am not persuaded that there is evidence that the goods have value beyond the cost of storing and selling them.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643229 — net $1,908.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4614689 dated	$3,426.43		Previous order application 4614689 dated
Lawn mowing during tenancy	$70.00		Lawn mowing during tenancy
Locksmith work	$336.65		Locksmith work
Cleaning and removing goods	$724.50		Cleaning and removing goods
Repair wall holes	$339.25		Repair wall holes
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00		Lawns and Garden work
Curtain rod replacement	$41.76		Curtain rod replacement
Curtain replacement	$57.98		Curtain replacement
Rubbish removal	$281.75		Rubbish removal
Minus rent credit		$1,170.00	Minus rent credit
Total award	$5,418.32	$1,170.00
Net award	$1,908.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,908.32

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Holly Elizabeth Victoria Fraser must pay The Difference Limited T/As Harcourts Helensville As Agent For Mikito Kojima $1,908.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (3415518-007) to The Difference Limited T/As Harcourts Helensville As Agent For Mikito Kojima immediately.
The Difference Limited T/As Harcourts Helensville As Agent For Mikito Kojima must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on 16 August 2023 (application 4614689). The adjudicator notes that calls to the tenant for the hearing were unsuccessful. The adjudicator was satisfied the tenant had abandoned the premises, therefore ordered termination of the tenancy immediately, and ordered the tenant to pay $3,426.43 in rent arrears.
The landlord now returns to the Tribunal seeking further orders following possession of the tenancy returning to the landlord. That relates to compensation and disposal of tenant goods.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In relation to the cleaning and rubbish removal claims, the RTA requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
I will now proceed to consider the landlords claims. Previous order
The Tribunal has previously ordered rent arrears be paid. It is sensible that that earlier order be combined into this order for enforcement purposes. For completeness if the landlord wishes to enforce an order, it is only this order that should be enforced. Rent credit
While it is not a claim as such, the landlord reports that after the tenancy had ended, further rent payments were received, and they are treated as a rent credit in this order. Lawn mowing during tenancy
The landlord reports that during the tenancy, the tenant requested the landlord to mow the lawns for her. Lawns are normally the responsibility of the tenant, so it is reasonable that the cost of that work be ordered to be paid by the tenant. Locksmith work
During the tenancy the landlord found the tenancy unlocked, and could not contact the tenant. The landlord incurred locksmith costs in securing the tenancy. There is an obligation on the tenant to ensure the premises are maintained securely. It is reasonable that the tenant reimburse the landlord this cost. Cleaning and storing goods
The photographs show the tenancy to be unclean at the end of the tenancy, and that there were extensive goods left by the tenant. The tenant was required to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove her goods. The costs claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy seem reasonable in the circumstances, and are ordered in full. Wall repair
The evidence is that during the tenancy a hole was made in a wall. This is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the hole was anything other than careless or intentional damage. The amount claimed seems reasonable and is ordered in full. Lawn and garden work
At the end of the tenancy the lawns and gardens were extensively overgrown. The tenant is liable to pay for the work needed to return the lawns and gardens to a state of being reasonably tidy. This claim is ordered in full. Curtain rod and curtain replacement
At the end of the tenancy the landlord needed to replace a broken curtain rod, and replace a missing curtain. The tenant was required to return all chattels provided to her at the start of the tenancy. This claim is ordered in full. Lawn work during tenancy
There was a further lawn work claim of $180.00 during the tenancy. The landlord confirmed that this work was undertaken without the tenants request, or order of the Tribunal. I am not persuaded there is a legal obligation on the tenant to pay for this work, so this claim is declined. Rubbish removal
Extensive rubbish was left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is liable for the rubbish removal. Disposal of tenant goods
The landlord has applied for disposal of tenant goods left on the premises at the end of the tenancy. It is not practicable for the landlord to return those goods to the tenant. The landlord may dispose of the goods as the landlord sees fit. I am not persuaded that there is evidence that the goods have value beyond the cost of storing and selling them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643229 — Cleanliness at 22 Karaka Street, Helensville, Helensville 0800

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643229 — Cleanliness at 22 Karaka Street, Helensville, Helensville 0800

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions