What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4655114?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4655114?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $250.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $765.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9540364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4655114?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4655114?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $250.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $765.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9540364-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

204 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655114 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655114 — net $1,156.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$250.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: shower damage	$765.84	Repairs: shower damage
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,156.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,156.99

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rose-Joy Waiariki is to pay Andrew Craig Hammond, Leanne Hammond And Jared Robert Gillies As Trustees For The Waiteata Trust Limited $1,156.99, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Hammond and Mrs Hammond attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Ms Waiariki, the tenant, also attended the hearing, along with her mother, Vienna-Rose Waiariki, as a support person. Ms Waiariki’s mother was asked to leave during the hearing, as she persisted in not respecting the role of a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation/damages, exemplary damages, failure to perform tenant responsibilities and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claims for exemplary damages and failure to perform tenant responsibilities. Further, the landlord also withdrew their claim for damage to wallpaper at the property during the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 25 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which, along with some clarifying discussion, assisted in proving the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is $250.71. The tenant agreed with this amount owing for rent arrears, as it provided for her payment for 2 weeks in advance at the start of the tenancy to be applied and included in the calculations.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they had to clean the oven, toilet and windows, wipe out the kitchen cupboards and mow the lawns. The landlord provided photographs of the bottom of the oven with some dirt and grease, the toilet which had some dark spots around the rim and of the lawn, which was somewhat overgrown. The patch of lawn to be mowed on the property was small, as shown in a photograph provided of it.
The tenant said she cleaned the property fully before she left but acknowledged she may have left a bit of grease in the oven and that she did not mow the lawns immediately before moving.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claimed $150.00 for cleaning and mowing the lawns. There was no quote or invoice provided for this, with Mrs Hammond saying she had guessed at an amount for the claim, calculating that she spent 3 hours cleaning @ $40.00/hour plus cleaning materials.
In the circumstances and given the tenant admitted that the oven was left greasy and the lawns were not mowed before vacating the property, I find 3 hours of time @ $40.00/hour for a total of $120.00, to clean the oven and toilet and mow the small patch of lawn to be a reasonable cost. Therefore, the landlord is awarded $120.00 for cleaning and mowing.
The landlord claimed $150.00 for cleaning the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided photographs of pre-existing stains on the carpet in bedroom 1 at the start of the tenancy. The landlords did not dispute there were pre-existing stains in this bedroom but said the carpets in other rooms needed to be cleaned, as the tenant had a child living there who would have spilled food and drinks. There were no photographs provided by the landlord as to the condition of the carpet in the other rooms at the end of the tenancy. Nor did the landlord provide any receipts relating to hiring a carpet steam cleaner or other carpet cleaning costs. Given this lack of evidence provided, this claim is dismissed.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Shower panel damage
The landlord said the tenant damaged one of the panels in the shower. They provided a photograph of the hole in the shower panel. The tenant acknowledged she had slipped in the shower, which caused the hole in one of the shower panels. I find this damage to be careless on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap.
The tenant said that she and Mrs Hammond had agreed at the end of the tenancy that they would both obtain quotes to fix the shower panel damage and decide where to go from there. Mrs Hammond said she did not hear back from Ms Waiariki with any quote from her. Ms Waiariki had a quote she provided at the hearing, which she said she obtained on 24 July 2023 after the person quoting had visited the property to see the damage. Her quote to repair the damage to the one panel was for $714.67. She acknowledged she had not provided this to Mrs Hammond prior to the hearing.
Mrs Hammond said that, as she had not heard back from Ms Waiariki at the end of the tenancy with a quote from her repairer, and as new tenants were about to move into the property, she had to proceed with repairing the shower panel. She provided a quote to repair the damage for $1,143.04. Mr Hammond said they got the shower panel repaired and paid the amount quoted of $1,143.04 for the repair of the shower panel.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Mr Hammond was unsure as to the age of the shower panels but estimated the shower was between 5-10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a shower in a rental property is around 15 years. As such, using 5 years as the age of the shower panel, I deduct the $1,143.04 paid to repair the shower panel by 33% for depreciation to $765.84.
Given that I find this damage to the shower panel to be careless by the tenant, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the lower of either the insurance excess, which is $750.00, as indicated in the Tenancy Agreement, or the depreciated cost of the repairs. Therefore, I award the landlord $765.84 for the repair of the shower panel.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Curtain tracks
The landlord said there was damage to a curtain track in the lounge and provided a photograph of a very bowed curtain track. Ms Waiariki said it was bowed due to the weight of the curtains. She provided a photograph from May 2023, around a month after she moved into the property, of the curtain track starting to bend in the middle. The landlord said another curtain track in the dining room was also similarly bowed, which the tenant acknowledged was the case. Mrs Hammond said she was not aware of the bends in the curtain tracks until she attended the property and asked about them.
Ms Waiariki said she did not notify the landlord of the issues with the curtain tracks because she did not believe they would take her seriously or do anything about it, as she had previously asked for a leak to be fixed, without success. This was disputed by the landlord.
When each party provides a different version of how damage occurred, the Tribunal must look to whether any additional supporting evidence is provided about the claim. In relation to the curtain track damage, there was no additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord. Therefore, I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused the damage during the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Bedroom door damage
The landlord said the tenant was responsible for damage to an old bedroom door. They provided photographs of the cracks in the wooden door. The tenant provided a photograph of this bedroom door taken on 22 April 2023, the day after she moved into the property, which shows large cracks in this wooden door. Mr Hammond pointed out that the entry inspection report, a copy of which was provided during the hearing, and which was completed on 21 April 2023, did not indicate there was a damaged bedroom door. Ms Waiariki said she did not notice this bedroom door during the entry inspection as she was focused on moving in at the time. Ms Waiariki explained that her son had slammed that bedroom door during the tenancy, which may have made the crack in the door worse. However, I find it more likely than not, based on the evidence, that the wooden bedroom door was cracked before the tenancy began. Therefore, the landlord has not proved it likely that the tenant caused all the damage to the door and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Andrew Craig Hammond, Leanne Hammond And Jared Robert Gillies As Trustees For The Waiteata Trust Limited have been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request suppression. During the hearing, the tenant requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant did not provide any evidence as to whether her interests outweighed the public interest in having her name published, nor did any evidence arise during the hearing that would have supported this. Due to this insufficient evidence provided by the tenant, I do not grant name suppression for the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655114 — net $1,156.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$250.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: shower damage	$765.84	Repairs: shower damage
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,156.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,156.99

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rose-Joy Waiariki is to pay Andrew Craig Hammond, Leanne Hammond And Jared Robert Gillies As Trustees For The Waiteata Trust Limited $1,156.99, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Hammond and Mrs Hammond attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Ms Waiariki, the tenant, also attended the hearing, along with her mother, Vienna-Rose Waiariki, as a support person. Ms Waiariki’s mother was asked to leave during the hearing, as she persisted in not respecting the role of a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation/damages, exemplary damages, failure to perform tenant responsibilities and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claims for exemplary damages and failure to perform tenant responsibilities. Further, the landlord also withdrew their claim for damage to wallpaper at the property during the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 25 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which, along with some clarifying discussion, assisted in proving the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is $250.71. The tenant agreed with this amount owing for rent arrears, as it provided for her payment for 2 weeks in advance at the start of the tenancy to be applied and included in the calculations.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they had to clean the oven, toilet and windows, wipe out the kitchen cupboards and mow the lawns. The landlord provided photographs of the bottom of the oven with some dirt and grease, the toilet which had some dark spots around the rim and of the lawn, which was somewhat overgrown. The patch of lawn to be mowed on the property was small, as shown in a photograph provided of it.
The tenant said she cleaned the property fully before she left but acknowledged she may have left a bit of grease in the oven and that she did not mow the lawns immediately before moving.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claimed $150.00 for cleaning and mowing the lawns. There was no quote or invoice provided for this, with Mrs Hammond saying she had guessed at an amount for the claim, calculating that she spent 3 hours cleaning @ $40.00/hour plus cleaning materials.
In the circumstances and given the tenant admitted that the oven was left greasy and the lawns were not mowed before vacating the property, I find 3 hours of time @ $40.00/hour for a total of $120.00, to clean the oven and toilet and mow the small patch of lawn to be a reasonable cost. Therefore, the landlord is awarded $120.00 for cleaning and mowing.
The landlord claimed $150.00 for cleaning the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided photographs of pre-existing stains on the carpet in bedroom 1 at the start of the tenancy. The landlords did not dispute there were pre-existing stains in this bedroom but said the carpets in other rooms needed to be cleaned, as the tenant had a child living there who would have spilled food and drinks. There were no photographs provided by the landlord as to the condition of the carpet in the other rooms at the end of the tenancy. Nor did the landlord provide any receipts relating to hiring a carpet steam cleaner or other carpet cleaning costs. Given this lack of evidence provided, this claim is dismissed.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Shower panel damage
The landlord said the tenant damaged one of the panels in the shower. They provided a photograph of the hole in the shower panel. The tenant acknowledged she had slipped in the shower, which caused the hole in one of the shower panels. I find this damage to be careless on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap.
The tenant said that she and Mrs Hammond had agreed at the end of the tenancy that they would both obtain quotes to fix the shower panel damage and decide where to go from there. Mrs Hammond said she did not hear back from Ms Waiariki with any quote from her. Ms Waiariki had a quote she provided at the hearing, which she said she obtained on 24 July 2023 after the person quoting had visited the property to see the damage. Her quote to repair the damage to the one panel was for $714.67. She acknowledged she had not provided this to Mrs Hammond prior to the hearing.
Mrs Hammond said that, as she had not heard back from Ms Waiariki at the end of the tenancy with a quote from her repairer, and as new tenants were about to move into the property, she had to proceed with repairing the shower panel. She provided a quote to repair the damage for $1,143.04. Mr Hammond said they got the shower panel repaired and paid the amount quoted of $1,143.04 for the repair of the shower panel.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Mr Hammond was unsure as to the age of the shower panels but estimated the shower was between 5-10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a shower in a rental property is around 15 years. As such, using 5 years as the age of the shower panel, I deduct the $1,143.04 paid to repair the shower panel by 33% for depreciation to $765.84.
Given that I find this damage to the shower panel to be careless by the tenant, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the lower of either the insurance excess, which is $750.00, as indicated in the Tenancy Agreement, or the depreciated cost of the repairs. Therefore, I award the landlord $765.84 for the repair of the shower panel.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Curtain tracks
The landlord said there was damage to a curtain track in the lounge and provided a photograph of a very bowed curtain track. Ms Waiariki said it was bowed due to the weight of the curtains. She provided a photograph from May 2023, around a month after she moved into the property, of the curtain track starting to bend in the middle. The landlord said another curtain track in the dining room was also similarly bowed, which the tenant acknowledged was the case. Mrs Hammond said she was not aware of the bends in the curtain tracks until she attended the property and asked about them.
Ms Waiariki said she did not notify the landlord of the issues with the curtain tracks because she did not believe they would take her seriously or do anything about it, as she had previously asked for a leak to be fixed, without success. This was disputed by the landlord.
When each party provides a different version of how damage occurred, the Tribunal must look to whether any additional supporting evidence is provided about the claim. In relation to the curtain track damage, there was no additional supporting evidence provided by the landlord. Therefore, I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused the damage during the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Bedroom door damage
The landlord said the tenant was responsible for damage to an old bedroom door. They provided photographs of the cracks in the wooden door. The tenant provided a photograph of this bedroom door taken on 22 April 2023, the day after she moved into the property, which shows large cracks in this wooden door. Mr Hammond pointed out that the entry inspection report, a copy of which was provided during the hearing, and which was completed on 21 April 2023, did not indicate there was a damaged bedroom door. Ms Waiariki said she did not notice this bedroom door during the entry inspection as she was focused on moving in at the time. Ms Waiariki explained that her son had slammed that bedroom door during the tenancy, which may have made the crack in the door worse. However, I find it more likely than not, based on the evidence, that the wooden bedroom door was cracked before the tenancy began. Therefore, the landlord has not proved it likely that the tenant caused all the damage to the door and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Andrew Craig Hammond, Leanne Hammond And Jared Robert Gillies As Trustees For The Waiteata Trust Limited have been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request suppression. During the hearing, the tenant requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant did not provide any evidence as to whether her interests outweighed the public interest in having her name published, nor did any evidence arise during the hearing that would have supported this. Due to this insufficient evidence provided by the tenant, I do not grant name suppression for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655114 — Property damage at 204 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655114 — Property damage at 204 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions