What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4669450?

The tribunal order states: Levi Whetu Ritete must pay Superfund Holdings Limited $5,679.45 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4669450?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.84 awarded to landlord; Balcony: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Items: $266.30 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,258.45 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,836.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4669450?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4669450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10031900-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4669450?

The tribunal order states: Levi Whetu Ritete must pay Superfund Holdings Limited $5,679.45 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4669450?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.84 awarded to landlord; Balcony: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Items: $266.30 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,258.45 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,836.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4669450?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4669450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10031900-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

567 Weymouth Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4669450 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4669450 — net $5,679.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$517.84	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,836.86	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Balcony	$300.00	Repairs: Balcony
Repairs: Painting	$2,258.45	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Bathroom items	$266.30	Repairs: Bathroom items
Net award	$5,679.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,679.45

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4669450 — net $5,679.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$517.84	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,836.86	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Balcony	$300.00	Repairs: Balcony
Repairs: Painting	$2,258.45	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Bathroom items	$266.30	Repairs: Bathroom items
Net award	$5,679.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,679.45

Order

Levi Whetu Ritete must pay Superfund Holdings Limited $5,679.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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.
The tenancy started on 11 May 2022 and ended on 21 July 2023.This was a five- bedroom home occupied by the Tenant, his children and some friends.

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 claimed $500.00 for the cleaning. They provided exit inspection photographs which showed the property was filthy as if no cleaning had been attempted by the Tenant. The Landlord also indicated the extent of their cleaning because they had to remove the Tenant’s rubbish before they could clean. An invoice was provided for the cleaning.
The amount ordered is proved.
The Landlord claimed $1936.86 for rubbish removal as there was a substantial amount of rubbish left behind. The Landlord had to hire a five tonne truck to remove the rubbish, pay tip fees, labour costs and petrol. The rubbish included playground equipment, beds and broken bikes. Photographs were provided of the rubbish. The Landlord stated it took them a couple of weeks to get all the rubbish removed and they had to take some of the Tenant’s belongings to storage such as the Tenant’s motorcycle.
There were discrepancies in the Landlords receipts, invoices and oral evidence given by the Landlord at the hearing in relation to the rubbish removal charges. The tip fees showed rubbish was taken to the tip on 3 August 2023, 7 August 2023, 4 September 2023, 5 September 2023 and 7 September 2023. The Landlord’s receipts showed they hired trucks on 7 August 2023 and 27 September 2023. The invoice from the Landlords contractor, ‘Vaiolini Taina’ showed the labour costs charged. The contractor collected rubbish on 2-3 August 2023, 7 August 2023, 14-18 August 2023 and 28 September 2023. On 14-18 August 2023, their invoice shows they loaded rubbish on a truck yet the truck was hired on other days. The invoices indicated the Landlord was removing rubbish for nearly two months for this property.
The discrepancy was in Vaiolini Taina’s invoice which stated they loaded a truck and took rubbish to the tip from 14-18 August 2023. The charge for this was $100.00. There was no receipt for the tip fees on that day and the truck was hired on 7 August 2023 and 27 September 2023.
In considering this evidence, I find that there was no supporting evidence confirming that Vaiolini Taina collected rubbish and loaded a truck on 14-18 August 2023, so I have reduced the amount claimed by $100.00. I find that the Landlord has shown from the invoices and inspection reports that there was rubbish that required removal and the balance of the invoice is proved.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: smoke alarms in bedroom 2 and 3. An invoice for $16.85 was provided for the smoke alarms however there was no photo of the smoke alarms in the pre-tenancy photographs and no pre-tenancy report to indicate these were present at the start of the tenancy.
The claim for smoke alarms is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed $78.45 for three missing light bulbs in the upper lounge area and one in Bedroom 3. Initially they stated it was because the light bulbs were spray painted on and then they amended this to state, the claim was for missing light bulbs. Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy to show missing light bulbs in the lounge, were taken too far away to ascertain if the bulbs were actually missing. The exit inspection photographs however were a lot more thorough than the pre-entry photographs, so it is difficult to understand, why a close up of the missing light bulbs was not taken. The pre-entry inspection photographs did not show the light bulbs in the upper lounge area or bedroom 3.
Because there is no solid evidence showing the light bulbs were present at the start or missing at the end, the claim is dismissed.
The Tenant did not return the keys. The Landlord had to evict the Tenant and a locksmith was organised on the day. The Landlord provided an invoice for the locksmith repairs.
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: damaged windows, doors, balcony rail, exterior wall, bathroom items and kitchen bench cabinet.
At the start of the hearing, the Landlord submitted that she spoke with the Tenant on 8 September 2023 when he was held in custody. She stated that he took responsibility for all the damage. The Tenant was with his lawyer at the time however there was no supporting evidence provided by the lawyer to confirm this conversation. The Landlord also submitted she had a photograph of the Tenant signing a document accepting responsibility for all the damage on the property. When asked if she had the actual document, the Landlord submitted a document which had brief handwritten notes. It was dated 22 September 2023 and headed ‘Copy received’. It did not state that the Tenant accepted responsibility for the damage and the costs to repair.
I do not consider this document as evidence of the Tenant accepting responsibility. As there was no supporting evidence that the Tenant stated orally to the Landlord on 8 September 2023 that he would accept responsibility for the repairs, I do not accept this evidence either.
Windows: The Landlord claimed $879.46 to repair broken windows which were discovered at the exit inspection. There were three window panes to be repaired which was the ranch slider, hallway window and upper level bedroom to repair. There were no photographs of the windows in the pre-entry report but the Tenant submitted they were all in good repair at the start of the tenancy.
She also submitted a handwritten document which stated ‘incoming inspection report and viewing 14 May 2022’. It had handwritten notes stating ‘all switch, latches windows and stove’ with a signature next to it. The landlord submitted this was her evidence the Tenant accepted the property was in a good condition at the start of the tenancy.
The Landlord also filed a separate document she relied upon which she submitted was the last page of the Tenancy Agreement. Under the heading “list of furniture and chattels provided by the Landlord”, it had a comment saying “all windows secured”. This was not signed by any party and upon perusal of the Landlord’s previous documents filed of the Tenancy Agreement, this was not attached as the last page.
The invoice from the window repairer also did not refer to the full address of the property but rather “Weymouth Road”.
In considering the evidence, there is no persuasive evidence that the three window panes were intact at the start of the tenancy because no photographs were provided in the pre-entry report The Tenancy Agreement did not actually refer to the condition of the windows and the invoice did not state the number of the address of the property. I also do not accept the handwritten document filed as an incoming inspection report. It provided brief notes but did not actually state the Tenant viewed these particular windows and found they were in good working order. I also do not know who’s signature is listed on the page.
I find the Landlord has not proved the damage was caused by the Tenant.
The claim is dismissed.
Balcony rail: The Landlord claimed $300.00 for repairing the balcony rail which was sliced. The landlord speculated this was caused by the Tenant repairing items on the balcony and accidentally slicing the balcony rail with a grinder. A photograph was provided of the balcony at the start of the tenancy and the end of the tenancy. An invoice was also provided for the repair. The pre-entry photograph was taken from a different angle to the exit inspection photograph. The landlord submitted the view in the photographs of the overlooking plants and driveway, indicate this part of the balcony was the same in both photographs.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not from the photographs and invoice that the Tenant intentionally caused this damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
Doors: The Landlord claimed $848.48 for the replacement of three doors in bedrooms 1, 2 and 3. Photographs in the exit inspection report indicated the locks in the doors appeared to be damaged. The Landlord speculated the doors were shoulder barged which caused the door mechanism to shatter. Invoices were provided for the replacement doors. The Landlord did not have specific photographs of the doors in the pre-entry inspection reports but submitted that the condition of the house in the photographs was good so the doors were also in the same condition.
In considering the evidence, I find that without pre-entry inspection reports or photographs showing the specific doors to be replaced, there is no evidence that the damage was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy.
The claim is dismissed.
Damaged walls: The Landlord claimed $2258.45 to repaint the damaged walls at the property because the Tenant had spray painted blue and black paint everywhere. Photographs of the pre-entry inspection report, exit report and invoice for the painting was provided. The paint damage was excessive and obvious.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not from the pre-entry, exit inspection reports and invoice that the Tenant damaged the walls with spray paint. The amount ordered is proved
Exterior hole: The Landlord claimed $456.18 for the repair of a hole by the front door. A photograph was provided in the exit inspection report and an invoice to repair. When asked for the pre-entry inspection photograph of this wall, the Landlord referred to a photograph by the front door however it was taken so far away, the area where the hole was unable to be seen.
In considering the evidence, because the photograph was not clear of the pre- entry condition of the wall, it was unable to be determined whether this hole was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy.
The claim for the repair to the hole is dismissed.
Kitchen bench cabinet: The Landlord claimed $811.00 to repair the kitchen bench because the Tenant had left the tap on at the end of the tenancy which caused substantial water damage. Photographs were shown of the damaged cabinet however the pre-entry inspection photographs were not as clear. The exterior of the cabinet was shown in the pre-entry report but there was no photograph of the inside of the cabinet. The condition could not be fully assessed properly. An invoice was provided for the repair. The Landlord submitted again that the kitchen was in a good state of repair at the start of the tenancy which was evident in the pre-entry photographs. The cabinet was in the same condition.
In considering the evidence, there was evidence that the exterior of the kitchen bench cabinet was in reasonable condition but nothing to support the inside of the cabinet was the same. It therefore is unclear as to why the whole bench had to be replaced.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
Bathroom items: The Landlord claimed $260.33 for bathroom items that were missing or damaged. This included a missing toilet roll holder, shower slider, waste caps and toilet seat damage. An invoice was provided for the repairs and replacements. Photographs of the pre-entry and exit inspection report was also provided.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not from the inspection reports provided that the damage to the bathroom items were caused during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful in their claim, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee. The landlord has not sought name suppression so an Order has not been made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4669450 — Property damage at 567 Weymouth Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4669450 — Property damage at 567 Weymouth Road, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions