What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4762667 about?

The tribunal order states: Sulika Brewster and Malili Malo must pay [The landlord/s] $5,377.03

How much money was awarded in case 4762667?

Cleaning: $274.59 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7.28 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $203.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.92 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Door Stop: $28.88 awarded to landlord; Sink Cupboard Missing Shelf: $308.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,656.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Broken door kno…: $128.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Entry Mat: $7.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shower Caddy: $27.77 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Soiled carpet r…: $187.99 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Toilet roll hol…: $26.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Welcome Mat: $28.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4762667?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4762667?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10381005-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4762667 about?

The tribunal order states: Sulika Brewster and Malili Malo must pay [The landlord/s] $5,377.03

How much money was awarded in case 4762667?

Cleaning: $274.59 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7.28 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $203.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.92 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Door Stop: $28.88 awarded to landlord; Sink Cupboard Missing Shelf: $308.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,656.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Broken door kno…: $128.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Entry Mat: $7.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shower Caddy: $27.77 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Soiled carpet r…: $187.99 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Toilet roll hol…: $26.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Welcome Mat: $28.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4762667?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4762667?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10381005-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12, 3 The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4762667 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4762667 — net $5,377.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears as at 11.10.23

$2,850.00

Rent arrears as at 11.10.23

Filing fee reimbursement

$20.44

Filing fee reimbursement

Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor

$274.59

Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor

Replace furnishings: Shower caddy

$27.77

Replace furnishings: Shower caddy

Replace furnishings: Toilet roll holder

$26.13

Replace furnishings: Toilet roll holder

Repairs: Ranch slider door stop

$28.88

Repairs: Ranch slider door stop

Replace furnishings: Broken door knobs

$128.00

Replace furnishings: Broken door knobs

Replace furnishings: Welcome mat

$28.08

Replace furnishings: Welcome mat

Replace furnishings: Entry mat

$7.00

Replace furnishings: Entry mat

Repairs: Paint for damaged doors

$47.92

Repairs: Paint for damaged doors

Cleaning: Claudia's cleaning invoice

$280.00

Cleaning: Claudia's cleaning invoice

Cleaning: Oven cleaning

$130.00

Cleaning: Oven cleaning

Repairs: Wall repairs

$1,656.00

Repairs: Wall repairs

Repairs: Sink cupboard missing shelf

$308.95

Repairs: Sink cupboard missing shelf

Carpet Cleaning: Supercity Chemdry

$203.00

Carpet Cleaning: Supercity Chemdry

Carpet Cleaning: Shake n Vac

$7.28

Carpet Cleaning: Shake n Vac

Replace furnishings: Soiled carpet removal

$187.99

Replace furnishings: Soiled carpet removal

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

$1,065.00

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

Net award

$5,377.03

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$5,377.03

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by 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 rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are 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. The tenants left rotting food in the oven which required extensive cleaning. The tenants also left behind rubbish and furniture which the landlord had to take to the rubbish tip.

The landlord says that the tenants’ had a dog at the apartment. This was against Body Corporate Rules. Attempts were made by the landlord to clean the damaged carpet. This included an initial clean with a Rug Doctor to try and remove the stench of dog wee. The landlord then arranged for the carpet to be professionally cleaned. Eventually the carpet had to be replaced due to the damage.

The amounts ordered for cleaning are proved.

The claim in respect of the final clean on 26 November 2023 is dismissed. The evidence provided by the landlord does not support this extra cleaning claim.

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 says the approximate age of the apartment is 30 years.

The landlord says that the tenants had a dog contrary to the Body Corporate Rules. He says that the carpet stench was terrible. After an initial clean with a Rug Doctor the stench remained. The landlord then arranged a professional clean of the carpet which made little difference.

The landlord says that the carpet was 6 years old and had to be replaced. The landlord provided entry photos taken in June 2022. No insurance was claimed.

The landlord had to fill holes in walls, repair damage to kitchen cabinets and replace doorknobs as a result of the tenants’ actions.

Curtains in one of the bedrooms were missing. The other bedroom only had part of a curtain remaining. The landlord purchased new curtains from the warehouse however was unable to provide a receipt for this.

The landlord had to replace the toilet roll holder, shower caddy, ranch slider door stop, broken door knobs and entry mats. There was also damage to walls, doors and a sink cupboard.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Having sighted entry and exit photographs and expenses receipts provided by the landlord in support of his claims I am satisfied that the damage is intentional. The tenants are responsible for this damage.

The labour costs as claimed by the landlord are reasonable and are also allowed.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The claim in respect of curtain replacement is dismissed as the landlord was unable to provide a receipt for this.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in respect of the carpet. 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 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 4762667 — net $5,377.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears as at 11.10.23

$2,850.00

Rent arrears as at 11.10.23

Filing fee reimbursement

$20.44

Filing fee reimbursement

Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor

$274.59

Carpet Cleaning: Rug Doctor

Replace furnishings: Shower caddy

$27.77

Replace furnishings: Shower caddy

Replace furnishings: Toilet roll holder

$26.13

Replace furnishings: Toilet roll holder

Repairs: Ranch slider door stop

$28.88

Repairs: Ranch slider door stop

Replace furnishings: Broken door knobs

$128.00

Replace furnishings: Broken door knobs

Replace furnishings: Welcome mat

$28.08

Replace furnishings: Welcome mat

Replace furnishings: Entry mat

$7.00

Replace furnishings: Entry mat

Repairs: Paint for damaged doors

$47.92

Repairs: Paint for damaged doors

Cleaning: Claudia's cleaning invoice

$280.00

Cleaning: Claudia's cleaning invoice

Cleaning: Oven cleaning

$130.00

Cleaning: Oven cleaning

Repairs: Wall repairs

$1,656.00

Repairs: Wall repairs

Repairs: Sink cupboard missing shelf

$308.95

Repairs: Sink cupboard missing shelf

Carpet Cleaning: Supercity Chemdry

$203.00

Carpet Cleaning: Supercity Chemdry

Carpet Cleaning: Shake n Vac

$7.28

Carpet Cleaning: Shake n Vac

Replace furnishings: Soiled carpet removal

$187.99

Replace furnishings: Soiled carpet removal

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

$1,065.00

Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (depreciated

Net award

$5,377.03

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$5,377.03

Order

Sulika Brewster and Malili Malo must pay [The landlord/s] $5,377.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by 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 rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are 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. The tenants left rotting food in the oven which required extensive cleaning. The tenants also left behind rubbish and furniture which the landlord had to take to the rubbish tip.
The landlord says that the tenants’ had a dog at the apartment. This was against Body Corporate Rules. Attempts were made by the landlord to clean the damaged carpet. This included an initial clean with a Rug Doctor to try and remove the stench of dog wee. The landlord then arranged for the carpet to be professionally cleaned. Eventually the carpet had to be replaced due to the damage.
The amounts ordered for cleaning are proved.
The claim in respect of the final clean on 26 November 2023 is dismissed. The evidence provided by the landlord does not support this extra cleaning claim.

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 says the approximate age of the apartment is 30 years.
The landlord says that the tenants had a dog contrary to the Body Corporate Rules. He says that the carpet stench was terrible. After an initial clean with a Rug Doctor the stench remained. The landlord then arranged a professional clean of the carpet which made little difference.
The landlord says that the carpet was 6 years old and had to be replaced. The landlord provided entry photos taken in June 2022. No insurance was claimed.
The landlord had to fill holes in walls, repair damage to kitchen cabinets and replace doorknobs as a result of the tenants’ actions.
Curtains in one of the bedrooms were missing. The other bedroom only had part of a curtain remaining. The landlord purchased new curtains from the warehouse however was unable to provide a receipt for this.
The landlord had to replace the toilet roll holder, shower caddy, ranch slider door stop, broken door knobs and entry mats. There was also damage to walls, doors and a sink cupboard.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Having sighted entry and exit photographs and expenses receipts provided by the landlord in support of his claims I am satisfied that the damage is intentional. The tenants are responsible for this damage.
The labour costs as claimed by the landlord are reasonable and are also allowed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The claim in respect of curtain replacement is dismissed as the landlord was unable to provide a receipt for this.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in respect of the carpet. 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 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 4762667 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 12, 3 The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4762667 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 12, 3 The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

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