What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4704769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,674.06 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4704769?

Cleaning: $390.99 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpaid: $304.29 awarded to tenant; Holes In Lounge And Painting: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Lights/ Wall Sockets: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $34.56 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bathroom Mirror: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $47.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $410.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704769?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10381379-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4704769 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,674.06 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4704769?

Cleaning: $390.99 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpaid: $304.29 awarded to tenant; Holes In Lounge And Painting: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Lights/ Wall Sockets: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $34.56 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bathroom Mirror: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $47.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $410.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704769?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10381379-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Mountbatten Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4704769 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4704769 — net $1,674.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$390.99		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Skip bin	$410.00		Rubbish removal: Skip bin
Light bulbs/batteries	$30.00		Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: Smoke alarms	$34.56		Repairs: Smoke alarms
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote control	$47.80		Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote control
Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror	$15.00		Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror
Repairs: Kitchen lights/ wall sockets	$350.00		Repairs: Kitchen lights/ wall sockets
Repairs: Holes in lounge and painting	$700.00		Repairs: Holes in lounge and painting
Rent overpaid		$304.29	Rent overpaid
Total award	$1,978.35	$304.29
Net award	$1,674.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,674.06

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,674.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This hearing was held in two parts. The first hearing was held on the 22 April and was attended by the landlord’s representative and the tenant and her support worker.
I completed the hearing of evidence but had reserved my decision. After the hearing the owner of the property filed a considerable amount of new evidence.
In light of the new evidence, I adjourned the matter to a further hearing held on the 20 May 2024. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended for the landlord, and [The tenant/s] attended.
The owner was given the opportunity of attending via video link but did not attend.
[The tenant/s]’s support worker could not attend but she gave a letter in support of [The tenant/s].
This application is a cross application. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage to the property.
The tenant claims that she has overpaid rent and seeks the overpayment of the rent to be returned to her. The tenant also says that the landlord failed to maintain the property by refusing to purchase a shower head.
Both parties seek the bond. Rent.
The tenancy ended on 21 August 2023 after order of the Tribunal. The tenant mistakenly paid rent on the 23 August 2023. The tenant is claiming the amount she has overpaid. I have calculated the rent owed over the whole of tenancy less the rent paid by the tenant and the tenant is entitled to $304.29 which is overpaid.

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/s] accepts that she did not leave the property in a reasonably tidy condition. She says that she had to leave quickly due to the termination order and did not have time to clean. The landlord has claimed $390.99 for cleaning, and I consider that a reasonable amount for the work that was done.
[The tenant/s] also confirms that some of the items in the skip bin left at the property were hers and that they should have been disposed of by her. However, she says other items in the skip bin were in the garage or otherwise at the property at the beginning of the tenancy and she should not be liable for those. I am satisfied that some of the items in the skip bin were at the tenancy before the tenancy commenced (from photographs taken by the landlord) but that the majority of the items in the skip bin belonged to the tenant. Given that the landlord has not charged labour for loading the skip bin then I award the landlord the total cost of the skip bin of $410.00.
The landlord is claiming a number of light bulbs at the property which it says were either missing or not working. The landlord confirmed at the first hearing that it does not change all of the light bulbs at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant is only liable for those lightbulbs that are missing at the end of the inspection or those that were new at the beginning of the tenancy and now do not work.
I note that there were a number of missing lightbulbs, and I award the landlord $30.00 for those bulbs.
The landlord claimed $34.56 for missing smoke alarms. Smoke alarms are listed on the tenancy agreement but were missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that they have gone missing during the tenancy and therefore the tenant is liable for the cost of them.
The tenant accepted that the heat pump remote was missing and I award the landlord the replacement costs of $47.80.
The landlord says the keys were not handed back. This was disputed by the tenant. There is no record of the keys given in the ingoing property inspection, but in the outgoing property inspection it is noted that the front door key was not given back.
Given that the number and type of keys were not recorded at the beginning of the tenancy, I am unable to say whether all the keys were given back or not. The landlord’s claims for replacement is not proven.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Two large holes in the lounge- which were accepted by the tenant. b) Cupboard door came off hinges. c) Window latch missing in bedroom. d) Toilet paper holder removed. e) Light shades removed. f) Power point in lounge broken. g) Damage to doors.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant claimed that there was a burglary at the property in October 2022 where the house was stripped of light fittings and the shower rose amongst other items. The tenant did not provide a copy of the police report to the Tribunal, but her version of events was supported by what she told her social worker well before these proceedings were contemplated. The social worker tells me that she made numerous complaints to the landlord about the shower rose throughout the tenancy and the landlord did not get back to her. In the end the social worker paid for a new shower rose so that the tenants did not have to use a hose for the shower.
It seems unusual that light shades would be taken in a burglary. Given that I do not have the Police report I am left with the fact that they have disappeared during the tenancy, and that the tenant has not proven that it was not careless or intentional.
Therefore, the tenant is responsible for the replacement lights and bathroom mirror. The tenant has replaced the shower rose.
I have awarded the landlord $15.00 for the bathroom mirror and $350.00 for the light fittings and power points. This amount also includes the cost of the electrician to reinstate those items.
I am not satisfied that the tenant or invitees damages the outside garage lights.
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.
The landlord also claimed compensation for wallpaper damage, damage to the carpet, and painting. The landlord has submitted photographs in support of those claims.
The tenant disputes that she left the wallpaper as photographed. She says that the wallpaper was dog-eared from wear but that it was not ripped like in the photographs. Photographs taken during inspections of the tenancy support the tenant’s position as does the statement made by the support worker who attended the property on many occasions. The photographs taken by the landlord are not dated and there is no other evidence which supports the landlord’s claim that the wallpaper was ripped like that during the tenancy.
In any case, the wallpaper looks to be much older than the depreciable lifespan for painting and wallpaper.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the wallpaper is not proven.
The landlord also claimed damage to the carpet and the cost of carpeting the property. One of the holes in the carpet was pre-existing and can be clearly seen in the ingoing inspection reports, the carpet fraying appears to be where it has uplifted from the carpet tacks, that is why it is has ripped in that place, because it has been cut from the tacks. The tenant is not liable for this damage.
The carpet also appears to be much older than suggested by the landlord. The landlord’s claim for carpet is not proven.
The landlord also claimed for painting multiple walls, I am satisfied that due to the holes in the lounge the landlord would have needed to repaint the lounge and some of the doors. However, I do not consider that the tenant should pay to paint walls where the wallpaper had been damaged because I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the damage.
The Tribunal considers claims for holes to walls on a regular basis and painting on a daily basis. The amounts claimed by the landlord are too high for the damage attributed to the tenant. I consider an amount of $700 for the repair of the holes and painting to be reasonable and I award that amount.
The tenants claim for failure to maintain. It is clear from both the evidence of the social worker and [The tenant/s] that the property manager was not responsive to any issues that were notified by the tenant. The social worker says in her evidence that when the tenant had tried to report a leak in the ceiling and the issue with the shower rose, but that her complaints were not responded to, in May 2023 [The tenant/s] gave her social worker permission to deal with the property manager and her social worker says she tried to address the same issues with the property manager and that “He did not respond to my calls or email.” The property manager has since left [The property management company].
Whilst the property manager was remiss in his communication and dealing with matters promptly, I cannot award any compensation because I am not satisfied that the tenant did not cause the damage to the shower head.
The tenant did not make any claim in respect of the leak and therefore I do not make any determination on that. Filing fee and name suppression
As both parties have been somewhat successful in their claims (The tenant was successful in her rent credit claim) then the filing fee will not be awarded to either of them.
Because both parties have been somewhat successful in their claims, I grant them name suppression as requested in their applications.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4704769 — net $1,674.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$390.99		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Skip bin	$410.00		Rubbish removal: Skip bin
Light bulbs/batteries	$30.00		Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: Smoke alarms	$34.56		Repairs: Smoke alarms
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote control	$47.80		Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote control
Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror	$15.00		Replace furnishings: Bathroom mirror
Repairs: Kitchen lights/ wall sockets	$350.00		Repairs: Kitchen lights/ wall sockets
Repairs: Holes in lounge and painting	$700.00		Repairs: Holes in lounge and painting
Rent overpaid		$304.29	Rent overpaid
Total award	$1,978.35	$304.29
Net award	$1,674.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,674.06

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,674.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This hearing was held in two parts. The first hearing was held on the 22 April and was attended by the landlord’s representative and the tenant and her support worker.
I completed the hearing of evidence but had reserved my decision. After the hearing the owner of the property filed a considerable amount of new evidence.
In light of the new evidence, I adjourned the matter to a further hearing held on the 20 May 2024. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended for the landlord, and [The tenant/s] attended.
The owner was given the opportunity of attending via video link but did not attend.
[The tenant/s]’s support worker could not attend but she gave a letter in support of [The tenant/s].
This application is a cross application. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage to the property.
The tenant claims that she has overpaid rent and seeks the overpayment of the rent to be returned to her. The tenant also says that the landlord failed to maintain the property by refusing to purchase a shower head.
Both parties seek the bond. Rent.
The tenancy ended on 21 August 2023 after order of the Tribunal. The tenant mistakenly paid rent on the 23 August 2023. The tenant is claiming the amount she has overpaid. I have calculated the rent owed over the whole of tenancy less the rent paid by the tenant and the tenant is entitled to $304.29 which is overpaid.

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/s] accepts that she did not leave the property in a reasonably tidy condition. She says that she had to leave quickly due to the termination order and did not have time to clean. The landlord has claimed $390.99 for cleaning, and I consider that a reasonable amount for the work that was done.
[The tenant/s] also confirms that some of the items in the skip bin left at the property were hers and that they should have been disposed of by her. However, she says other items in the skip bin were in the garage or otherwise at the property at the beginning of the tenancy and she should not be liable for those. I am satisfied that some of the items in the skip bin were at the tenancy before the tenancy commenced (from photographs taken by the landlord) but that the majority of the items in the skip bin belonged to the tenant. Given that the landlord has not charged labour for loading the skip bin then I award the landlord the total cost of the skip bin of $410.00.
The landlord is claiming a number of light bulbs at the property which it says were either missing or not working. The landlord confirmed at the first hearing that it does not change all of the light bulbs at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant is only liable for those lightbulbs that are missing at the end of the inspection or those that were new at the beginning of the tenancy and now do not work.
I note that there were a number of missing lightbulbs, and I award the landlord $30.00 for those bulbs.
The landlord claimed $34.56 for missing smoke alarms. Smoke alarms are listed on the tenancy agreement but were missing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that they have gone missing during the tenancy and therefore the tenant is liable for the cost of them.
The tenant accepted that the heat pump remote was missing and I award the landlord the replacement costs of $47.80.
The landlord says the keys were not handed back. This was disputed by the tenant. There is no record of the keys given in the ingoing property inspection, but in the outgoing property inspection it is noted that the front door key was not given back.
Given that the number and type of keys were not recorded at the beginning of the tenancy, I am unable to say whether all the keys were given back or not. The landlord’s claims for replacement is not proven.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Two large holes in the lounge- which were accepted by the tenant. b) Cupboard door came off hinges. c) Window latch missing in bedroom. d) Toilet paper holder removed. e) Light shades removed. f) Power point in lounge broken. g) Damage to doors.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant claimed that there was a burglary at the property in October 2022 where the house was stripped of light fittings and the shower rose amongst other items. The tenant did not provide a copy of the police report to the Tribunal, but her version of events was supported by what she told her social worker well before these proceedings were contemplated. The social worker tells me that she made numerous complaints to the landlord about the shower rose throughout the tenancy and the landlord did not get back to her. In the end the social worker paid for a new shower rose so that the tenants did not have to use a hose for the shower.
It seems unusual that light shades would be taken in a burglary. Given that I do not have the Police report I am left with the fact that they have disappeared during the tenancy, and that the tenant has not proven that it was not careless or intentional.
Therefore, the tenant is responsible for the replacement lights and bathroom mirror. The tenant has replaced the shower rose.
I have awarded the landlord $15.00 for the bathroom mirror and $350.00 for the light fittings and power points. This amount also includes the cost of the electrician to reinstate those items.
I am not satisfied that the tenant or invitees damages the outside garage lights.
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.
The landlord also claimed compensation for wallpaper damage, damage to the carpet, and painting. The landlord has submitted photographs in support of those claims.
The tenant disputes that she left the wallpaper as photographed. She says that the wallpaper was dog-eared from wear but that it was not ripped like in the photographs. Photographs taken during inspections of the tenancy support the tenant’s position as does the statement made by the support worker who attended the property on many occasions. The photographs taken by the landlord are not dated and there is no other evidence which supports the landlord’s claim that the wallpaper was ripped like that during the tenancy.
In any case, the wallpaper looks to be much older than the depreciable lifespan for painting and wallpaper.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the wallpaper is not proven.
The landlord also claimed damage to the carpet and the cost of carpeting the property. One of the holes in the carpet was pre-existing and can be clearly seen in the ingoing inspection reports, the carpet fraying appears to be where it has uplifted from the carpet tacks, that is why it is has ripped in that place, because it has been cut from the tacks. The tenant is not liable for this damage.
The carpet also appears to be much older than suggested by the landlord. The landlord’s claim for carpet is not proven.
The landlord also claimed for painting multiple walls, I am satisfied that due to the holes in the lounge the landlord would have needed to repaint the lounge and some of the doors. However, I do not consider that the tenant should pay to paint walls where the wallpaper had been damaged because I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the damage.
The Tribunal considers claims for holes to walls on a regular basis and painting on a daily basis. The amounts claimed by the landlord are too high for the damage attributed to the tenant. I consider an amount of $700 for the repair of the holes and painting to be reasonable and I award that amount.
The tenants claim for failure to maintain. It is clear from both the evidence of the social worker and [The tenant/s] that the property manager was not responsive to any issues that were notified by the tenant. The social worker says in her evidence that when the tenant had tried to report a leak in the ceiling and the issue with the shower rose, but that her complaints were not responded to, in May 2023 [The tenant/s] gave her social worker permission to deal with the property manager and her social worker says she tried to address the same issues with the property manager and that “He did not respond to my calls or email.” The property manager has since left [The property management company].
Whilst the property manager was remiss in his communication and dealing with matters promptly, I cannot award any compensation because I am not satisfied that the tenant did not cause the damage to the shower head.
The tenant did not make any claim in respect of the leak and therefore I do not make any determination on that. Filing fee and name suppression
As both parties have been somewhat successful in their claims (The tenant was successful in her rent credit claim) then the filing fee will not be awarded to either of them.
Because both parties have been somewhat successful in their claims, I grant them name suppression as requested in their applications.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704769 — Property damage at 4 Mountbatten Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704769 — Property damage at 4 Mountbatten Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions