What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4695849 about?

The tribunal order states: Rodrigo Silveira, Fabiane Alencar, Eduardo Elias Barbosa Dos Santos and

How much money was awarded in case 4695849?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $249.55 awarded to landlord; Oven Handle: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $165.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695849?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9713231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4695849 about?

The tribunal order states: Rodrigo Silveira, Fabiane Alencar, Eduardo Elias Barbosa Dos Santos and

How much money was awarded in case 4695849?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $249.55 awarded to landlord; Oven Handle: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $165.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695849?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9713231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41 Riverlea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4695849 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

41 Riverlea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4695849 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695849 — net $655.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$165.45	Water rates
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$249.55	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Oven handle	$120.00	Repairs: Oven handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$655.44
Bond	$4,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$655.44

Claims and awards for application 4695849 — net $655.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $165.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $249.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: Oven handle

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Oven handle

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

Rodrigo Silveira, Fabiane Alencar, Eduardo Elias Barbosa Dos Santos and Amandeep Rakhra to pay Edwards Realty Limited $655.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $606.44 Rodrigo Silveira, Fabiane Alencar, Eduardo Elias Barbosa Dos Santos and Amandeep Rakhra: $3,593.56
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Ms Southgate appeared as property manager and Mr Rodrigo Silveira spoke for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the time period of the invoice was during the tenancy and for some time after the tenancy ended but the premises were not tenanted during this time, so no extra water was used.

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 claimed that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants said they had employed a cleaner themselves but had left the stains that were there at the start of the tenancy. They disputed that the items in the recycling bin were theirs.
The photos of the full recycling bins were taken, the landlord said, after the cleaner had been there. They believed that the cleaner had put items she had found in the bins. The photo was 3 days after the tenants had left at the final inspection on 11 September 2023.
The tenants left the premises reasonably clean except for the oven and some stains. The tenants said that due to an open vent a bird was able to get inside the premises. After consideration of all the evidence I award $100.00 for the cleaning and rubbish removal claim.
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 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 claimed for the repair of the oven handle. The tenants disputed this and provided photos at the end of the tenancy of the oven handle attached at both ends. The final inspection by the landlord on 11 September 2023 did not note any issues with the handle but the photo of the inspection showed the handle broken on one side of the oven front.
I find that the handle was broken at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that this is careless damage and award $120.00 for this claim.
The landlord made a claim for damage to the bathroom sink and claimed the insurance excess for this based on careless damage by the tenants. This issue had been raised by the tenants during the tenancy. The tenants agreed that the damage occurred during the tenancy but dispute that they caused it saying that the damage occurred after a handyman had been working in the bathroom.
The property manager said that the handyman was organised by the owner, and they were not present. They were told that the handyman denied breaking it.
Both parties supplied conflicting photos.
I find that there was not enough evidence supplied establishing the claim on the balance of probabilities and it is dismissed.
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.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Name suppression for the landlord is awarded.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695849 — net $655.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$165.45	Water rates
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$249.55	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Oven handle	$120.00	Repairs: Oven handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$655.44
Bond	$4,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$655.44

Claims and awards for application 4695849 — net $655.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $165.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $249.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: Oven handle

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Oven handle

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

Rodrigo Silveira, Fabiane Alencar, Eduardo Elias Barbosa Dos Santos and Amandeep Rakhra to pay Edwards Realty Limited $655.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $606.44 Rodrigo Silveira, Fabiane Alencar, Eduardo Elias Barbosa Dos Santos and Amandeep Rakhra: $3,593.56
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Ms Southgate appeared as property manager and Mr Rodrigo Silveira spoke for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the time period of the invoice was during the tenancy and for some time after the tenancy ended but the premises were not tenanted during this time, so no extra water was used.

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 claimed that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants said they had employed a cleaner themselves but had left the stains that were there at the start of the tenancy. They disputed that the items in the recycling bin were theirs.
The photos of the full recycling bins were taken, the landlord said, after the cleaner had been there. They believed that the cleaner had put items she had found in the bins. The photo was 3 days after the tenants had left at the final inspection on 11 September 2023.
The tenants left the premises reasonably clean except for the oven and some stains. The tenants said that due to an open vent a bird was able to get inside the premises. After consideration of all the evidence I award $100.00 for the cleaning and rubbish removal claim.
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 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 claimed for the repair of the oven handle. The tenants disputed this and provided photos at the end of the tenancy of the oven handle attached at both ends. The final inspection by the landlord on 11 September 2023 did not note any issues with the handle but the photo of the inspection showed the handle broken on one side of the oven front.
I find that the handle was broken at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that this is careless damage and award $120.00 for this claim.
The landlord made a claim for damage to the bathroom sink and claimed the insurance excess for this based on careless damage by the tenants. This issue had been raised by the tenants during the tenancy. The tenants agreed that the damage occurred during the tenancy but dispute that they caused it saying that the damage occurred after a handyman had been working in the bathroom.
The property manager said that the handyman was organised by the owner, and they were not present. They were told that the handyman denied breaking it.
Both parties supplied conflicting photos.
I find that there was not enough evidence supplied establishing the claim on the balance of probabilities and it is dismissed.
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.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Name suppression for the landlord is awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695849 — Property damage at 41 Riverlea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695849 — Property damage at 41 Riverlea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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