What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755729 about?

The tribunal order states: Jennifer Taiapo must pay [The landlord/s] $11,400.84 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4755729?

Cleaning: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,960.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $230.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755729?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10189223-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755729 about?

The tribunal order states: Jennifer Taiapo must pay [The landlord/s] $11,400.84 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4755729?

Cleaning: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,960.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $230.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755729?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10189223-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 20 Fields Parade, Oteha, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755729 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755729 — net $11,400.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22.10.23	$2,960.00	Rent arrears to 22.10.23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$230.40	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Garage door insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs: Garage door insurance excess
Window repairs	$1,200.00	Window repairs
Repairs: Damage to walls	$3,000.00	Repairs: Damage to walls
Replace damaged doors	$920.00	Replace damaged doors
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$310.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing
Net award	$11,400.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,400.84

Order

Jennifer Taiapo must pay [The landlord/s] $11,400.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.

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 and personal belongings.
The landlord provided photographic evidence confirming the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant left the property in a disgraceful condition. There was significant damage throughout the property and the tenant had vacated leaving behind a significant amount of personal belongings and rubbish. The landlord says that it took two people all day to remove the rubbish and involved more than one trip to the rubbish tip.
I have sighted photographic evidence of the overgrown lawn.
The landlord’s claims in respect of rubbish removal, cleaning, lawn mowing, and carpet cleaning are allowed. Having sighted the helpful photographic evidence and invoices provided by the landlord in support I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these expense claims.
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 claims that the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Garage door: This was damaged beyond repair and had to be replaced. This is the only claim where the landlord received insurance money. Based on the photographic evidence provided I am satisfied that this damage was intentional. I have also sighted a detailed invoice for the replacement of the garage door. b. Broken windows: The landlord claims that the tenant broke several windows. One window upstairs and three windows downstairs were broken. The landlord provided a receipt with her application. Based on the photographic evidence filed I find that the damage to these windows was intentional. No insurance money was received for this damage. c. Wall repairs: The landlord claims that the tenant caused significant damage to the walls of the premises. Having sighted the photographic evidence filed with the application I am satisfied that the damage is intentional. No insurance money was received for this damage. d. Broken doors: The landlord says that the tenant damaged four internal doors. The damage was beyond repair and the doors had to be replaced. The photographic evidence filed confirms that the damage was intentional. No insurance money was received for this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord’s claim in respect of compensation for carpet damage is dismissed. They say that carpet stains remained after the carpet had been professionally cleaned. The landlord also stated that the owner received a quote to replace the carpet. This was not filed with the application. Based on the age of the carpet (8 years) it is my view that it is coming towards the end of its useful rental lifespan. This assessment is based on the IRD Depreciation Schedule IR265.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the power reconnection fee is dismissed. The evidence does not establish that the tenant should be held responsible for this fee. I also cannot be certain that the power was disconnected for non-payment of the power account. Accordingly, this fee should be absorbed by the landlord as a cost of doing business.
The claim in respect of the plumbers call out fee is dismissed. The landlord says the police turned up having received a complaint regarding the tenant’s brother. The landlord says that police vehicles were blocking the entrance which prevented the plumber gaining access. In my view this is an event which the tenant had little or no control over. The plumber’s invoice resulting from the actions by the brother would not be foreseeable by the tenant.
I also dismiss the landlord’s exemplary damages claim in respect of the tenant exceeding the maximum number of occupants. The landlord provided two anonymous messages stating that there were a number of people residing at the property. One informant said that there were between eight and ten people residing there, the other said more than ten. In my view, this evidence is not enough to satisfy me that the tenant has breached her obligations in this regard. The evidence provided does not convince me that these people were residing, as opposed to visiting. Photographic evidence in support of this claim should have come from the landlord following on from their routine inspections.
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.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the bond has been released in full.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755729 — net $11,400.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22.10.23	$2,960.00	Rent arrears to 22.10.23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$230.40	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Garage door insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs: Garage door insurance excess
Window repairs	$1,200.00	Window repairs
Repairs: Damage to walls	$3,000.00	Repairs: Damage to walls
Replace damaged doors	$920.00	Replace damaged doors
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$310.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work: Lawn mowing
Net award	$11,400.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,400.84

Order

Jennifer Taiapo must pay [The landlord/s] $11,400.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.

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 and personal belongings.
The landlord provided photographic evidence confirming the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant left the property in a disgraceful condition. There was significant damage throughout the property and the tenant had vacated leaving behind a significant amount of personal belongings and rubbish. The landlord says that it took two people all day to remove the rubbish and involved more than one trip to the rubbish tip.
I have sighted photographic evidence of the overgrown lawn.
The landlord’s claims in respect of rubbish removal, cleaning, lawn mowing, and carpet cleaning are allowed. Having sighted the helpful photographic evidence and invoices provided by the landlord in support I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these expense claims.
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 claims that the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Garage door: This was damaged beyond repair and had to be replaced. This is the only claim where the landlord received insurance money. Based on the photographic evidence provided I am satisfied that this damage was intentional. I have also sighted a detailed invoice for the replacement of the garage door. b. Broken windows: The landlord claims that the tenant broke several windows. One window upstairs and three windows downstairs were broken. The landlord provided a receipt with her application. Based on the photographic evidence filed I find that the damage to these windows was intentional. No insurance money was received for this damage. c. Wall repairs: The landlord claims that the tenant caused significant damage to the walls of the premises. Having sighted the photographic evidence filed with the application I am satisfied that the damage is intentional. No insurance money was received for this damage. d. Broken doors: The landlord says that the tenant damaged four internal doors. The damage was beyond repair and the doors had to be replaced. The photographic evidence filed confirms that the damage was intentional. No insurance money was received for this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord’s claim in respect of compensation for carpet damage is dismissed. They say that carpet stains remained after the carpet had been professionally cleaned. The landlord also stated that the owner received a quote to replace the carpet. This was not filed with the application. Based on the age of the carpet (8 years) it is my view that it is coming towards the end of its useful rental lifespan. This assessment is based on the IRD Depreciation Schedule IR265.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the power reconnection fee is dismissed. The evidence does not establish that the tenant should be held responsible for this fee. I also cannot be certain that the power was disconnected for non-payment of the power account. Accordingly, this fee should be absorbed by the landlord as a cost of doing business.
The claim in respect of the plumbers call out fee is dismissed. The landlord says the police turned up having received a complaint regarding the tenant’s brother. The landlord says that police vehicles were blocking the entrance which prevented the plumber gaining access. In my view this is an event which the tenant had little or no control over. The plumber’s invoice resulting from the actions by the brother would not be foreseeable by the tenant.
I also dismiss the landlord’s exemplary damages claim in respect of the tenant exceeding the maximum number of occupants. The landlord provided two anonymous messages stating that there were a number of people residing at the property. One informant said that there were between eight and ten people residing there, the other said more than ten. In my view, this evidence is not enough to satisfy me that the tenant has breached her obligations in this regard. The evidence provided does not convince me that these people were residing, as opposed to visiting. Photographic evidence in support of this claim should have come from the landlord following on from their routine inspections.
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.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the bond has been released in full.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755729 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 20 Fields Parade, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755729 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 20 Fields Parade, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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