What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677829 about?

The tribunal order states: Melesina Toumohuni and Siupeli Toumohuni must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4677829?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Install Oven: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,000.20 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,850.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,140.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,216.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677829?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10358683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677829 about?

The tribunal order states: Melesina Toumohuni and Siupeli Toumohuni must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4677829?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Install Oven: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,000.20 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,850.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,140.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,216.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677829?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10358683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677829 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677829 — net $8,096.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 July 2023	$3,140.00	4. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of t…
Water rates	$1,216.34	7. The Property Manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the Landlord had started managing the property towards the end of the tenancy.
Oven/stove cleaning: (Depreciated	$1,000.20	Oven/stove cleaning: (Depreciated
Repairs: Doors	$125.00	Repairs: Doors
Cleaning: By consent	$150.00	Cleaning: By consent
Rubbish removal: By consent	$600.00	Rubbish removal: By consent
Repairs: Painting and wall repair by consent	$1,650.00	Repairs: Painting and wall repair by consent
Install oven	$109.25	Install oven
Pest control	$475.00	Pest control
Carpet replacement	$1,850.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,096.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,096.23

Order

Melesina Toumohuni and Siupeli Toumohuni must pay [The landlord/s] $8,096.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 27 March 2021 and ended on 21 July 2023.
The parties agreed for the Tenant to pay the Landlord the cost to repair the wall damage, cleaning and rubbish removal.
The Property Manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the Landlord had started managing the property towards the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant disagreed with the rent arrears and claimed their daughter had made a payment of $1400.00 which was not accounted for in the rent arrears. The Tenants however did not have any evidence of this payment.
The Tenant also disagreed with the water rates arrears because they found a water leak under the house around September 2022 after noticing some of their items under the house were wet and the water rates arrears were unusually high. They reported this immediately to the Landlord, however the Landlord never attended to the issue until May 2023. The Tenant did not have evidence of the dates and times they reported this to the Landlord. They submitted there were a number of different Property Managers that were no longer employed at the Real Estate company which also made it difficult.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not provide any proof that they had paid the $1400.00 in rent via a bank account transaction or bank receipt. They also did not have any evidence that they notified the Landlord about a water leak when they first discovered it. If there was a water leak, then they ought to have raised this issue at the time they agreed to pay the water rates arrears. The Tenant also notified the Landlord of the leaks via telephone and on one occasion during an inspection however there was no record of this provided. The Landlord only had records of a Plumber attending in May 2023.
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 oven, doors and carpet damage.
Oven: The Landlord claimed to replace the oven as the door would not close properly and there was an infestation of cockroaches inside the oven. Photographs were provided of multiple dead cockroaches stuck to the oven walls and an invoice to replace it. The Landlord submitted the oven was not brand new when the Tenants moved in but was within the five-year warranty.
The Tenant disputed this replacement stating that there was already an issue with cockroaches before she moved into the property. She saw a cockroach running across the kitchen bench when she attended the pre-inspection viewing and was told the property would be fumigated. Approximately three months after living there, she noticed there were a lot of cockroaches under her freezer. She did not report this to the Landlord because she thought it was her responsibility to remove them and not the Landlords. She also reported the broken seal of the oven door to the Landlord approximately three months after moving in but the Landlord only sent a tradesperson in 2023 who replaced the rubber seal of the oven door. There was still steam coming out of it after the repair. The Tradesperson said they would tell the Landlord however no further action was taken by the Landlord. The Tenant also submitted she hardly ever used the bottom of the oven. The Tenant did not have evidence of her notifications to the Landlord as she did this by phone calls.
Door:The Landlord submitted the Tenant broke the hallway and bedroom doors which was discovered in the routine inspection report on 18 July 2023. It was noted that this door was in good condition in the previous routine inspection report of 12 January 2021. These reports were provided. The door handle was falling out and the hinges were loose as if it had been forced open. An invoice was provided for the repair of the doors.
The Tenant submitted she notified the previous Property Manager in March 2023 by telephone that the door had become loose but the Landlord never sent anyone to repair it. They submitted a Tradesperson was sent by the Landlord in June 2023 for other repairs but never repaired the door. There was no evidence of these notifications provided.
Carpet replacement: The Landlord claimed $1850.00 for carpet replacement throughout the entire house because there were carpet stains in all the rooms which they discovered after the Tenant removed the mats. This was a reduced amount from what was claimed in the invoice provided. Photographs were provided of the stains which were extensive. There was no evidence however that the Landlord attempted to remove the stains first.
The Tenant said they placed mats on the floor during the whole tenancy which would prevent the carpet from being damaged. They took responsibility for an iron mark in one room and a stain in another room but not the entire house. The Tenant then requested to reduce the claim to $1600.00.
In considering the evidence regarding the oven, the Tenant failed to advise the Landlord of the cockroach infestation at the time she saw it after moving in because she mistakenly thought it was her responsibility to remove them. She also stated the oven door was never repaired properly however she had no evidence of reports to the Landlord. Had the Tenant notified the Landlord immediately of these issues, the oven may not have needed to be replaced. It is their responsibility to notify the Landlord of any damages to a property as soon as they occur.
In terms of the damaged doors, it appeared from the photographs provided from the Landlord as if the damage was more than fair wear and tear. There was no evidence provided by the Tenant that she reported this damage to the Landlord.
In terms of the carpet, the Landlord did not provide evidence that they attempted to clean the stains first before resorting to carpet replacement perhaps because of how extensive they were. The Tenant disputed causing the bulk of the stains on the floor however they still agreed to pay a reduced amount which suggests some responsibility taken for the damage caused to the carpet. The extensive damage to the walls of the property also suggest a lack care for the property which is consistent with the carpet damage. For these reasons, I find the Tenant should replace the carpet.
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 for the oven and carpet, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Cockroach issue
The Landlord claimed costs for insecticide fumigation due to a cockroach infestation. An invoice was provided.
The Tenant did not agree to paying this amount however acknowledged she did not report the cockroach issue to the Landlord at the start of the tenancy. The failure to report may have caused the infestation to worsen.
The amount ordered is proved.
[The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.
The Tenants did not request name suppression so this has not been granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677829 — net $8,096.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 July 2023	$3,140.00	4. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of t…
Water rates	$1,216.34	7. The Property Manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the Landlord had started managing the property towards the end of the tenancy.
Oven/stove cleaning: (Depreciated	$1,000.20	Oven/stove cleaning: (Depreciated
Repairs: Doors	$125.00	Repairs: Doors
Cleaning: By consent	$150.00	Cleaning: By consent
Rubbish removal: By consent	$600.00	Rubbish removal: By consent
Repairs: Painting and wall repair by consent	$1,650.00	Repairs: Painting and wall repair by consent
Install oven	$109.25	Install oven
Pest control	$475.00	Pest control
Carpet replacement	$1,850.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,096.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,096.23

Order

Melesina Toumohuni and Siupeli Toumohuni must pay [The landlord/s] $8,096.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 27 March 2021 and ended on 21 July 2023.
The parties agreed for the Tenant to pay the Landlord the cost to repair the wall damage, cleaning and rubbish removal.
The Property Manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the Landlord had started managing the property towards the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant disagreed with the rent arrears and claimed their daughter had made a payment of $1400.00 which was not accounted for in the rent arrears. The Tenants however did not have any evidence of this payment.
The Tenant also disagreed with the water rates arrears because they found a water leak under the house around September 2022 after noticing some of their items under the house were wet and the water rates arrears were unusually high. They reported this immediately to the Landlord, however the Landlord never attended to the issue until May 2023. The Tenant did not have evidence of the dates and times they reported this to the Landlord. They submitted there were a number of different Property Managers that were no longer employed at the Real Estate company which also made it difficult.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not provide any proof that they had paid the $1400.00 in rent via a bank account transaction or bank receipt. They also did not have any evidence that they notified the Landlord about a water leak when they first discovered it. If there was a water leak, then they ought to have raised this issue at the time they agreed to pay the water rates arrears. The Tenant also notified the Landlord of the leaks via telephone and on one occasion during an inspection however there was no record of this provided. The Landlord only had records of a Plumber attending in May 2023.
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 oven, doors and carpet damage.
Oven: The Landlord claimed to replace the oven as the door would not close properly and there was an infestation of cockroaches inside the oven. Photographs were provided of multiple dead cockroaches stuck to the oven walls and an invoice to replace it. The Landlord submitted the oven was not brand new when the Tenants moved in but was within the five-year warranty.
The Tenant disputed this replacement stating that there was already an issue with cockroaches before she moved into the property. She saw a cockroach running across the kitchen bench when she attended the pre-inspection viewing and was told the property would be fumigated. Approximately three months after living there, she noticed there were a lot of cockroaches under her freezer. She did not report this to the Landlord because she thought it was her responsibility to remove them and not the Landlords. She also reported the broken seal of the oven door to the Landlord approximately three months after moving in but the Landlord only sent a tradesperson in 2023 who replaced the rubber seal of the oven door. There was still steam coming out of it after the repair. The Tradesperson said they would tell the Landlord however no further action was taken by the Landlord. The Tenant also submitted she hardly ever used the bottom of the oven. The Tenant did not have evidence of her notifications to the Landlord as she did this by phone calls.
Door:The Landlord submitted the Tenant broke the hallway and bedroom doors which was discovered in the routine inspection report on 18 July 2023. It was noted that this door was in good condition in the previous routine inspection report of 12 January 2021. These reports were provided. The door handle was falling out and the hinges were loose as if it had been forced open. An invoice was provided for the repair of the doors.
The Tenant submitted she notified the previous Property Manager in March 2023 by telephone that the door had become loose but the Landlord never sent anyone to repair it. They submitted a Tradesperson was sent by the Landlord in June 2023 for other repairs but never repaired the door. There was no evidence of these notifications provided.
Carpet replacement: The Landlord claimed $1850.00 for carpet replacement throughout the entire house because there were carpet stains in all the rooms which they discovered after the Tenant removed the mats. This was a reduced amount from what was claimed in the invoice provided. Photographs were provided of the stains which were extensive. There was no evidence however that the Landlord attempted to remove the stains first.
The Tenant said they placed mats on the floor during the whole tenancy which would prevent the carpet from being damaged. They took responsibility for an iron mark in one room and a stain in another room but not the entire house. The Tenant then requested to reduce the claim to $1600.00.
In considering the evidence regarding the oven, the Tenant failed to advise the Landlord of the cockroach infestation at the time she saw it after moving in because she mistakenly thought it was her responsibility to remove them. She also stated the oven door was never repaired properly however she had no evidence of reports to the Landlord. Had the Tenant notified the Landlord immediately of these issues, the oven may not have needed to be replaced. It is their responsibility to notify the Landlord of any damages to a property as soon as they occur.
In terms of the damaged doors, it appeared from the photographs provided from the Landlord as if the damage was more than fair wear and tear. There was no evidence provided by the Tenant that she reported this damage to the Landlord.
In terms of the carpet, the Landlord did not provide evidence that they attempted to clean the stains first before resorting to carpet replacement perhaps because of how extensive they were. The Tenant disputed causing the bulk of the stains on the floor however they still agreed to pay a reduced amount which suggests some responsibility taken for the damage caused to the carpet. The extensive damage to the walls of the property also suggest a lack care for the property which is consistent with the carpet damage. For these reasons, I find the Tenant should replace the carpet.
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 for the oven and carpet, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Cockroach issue
The Landlord claimed costs for insecticide fumigation due to a cockroach infestation. An invoice was provided.
The Tenant did not agree to paying this amount however acknowledged she did not report the cockroach issue to the Landlord at the start of the tenancy. The failure to report may have caused the infestation to worsen.
The amount ordered is proved.
[The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.
The Tenants did not request name suppression so this has not been granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677829 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677829 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates arrears?

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 and water rates arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions