What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781362?

The tribunal order states: Renee Anne Ngakahikatea Tumai must pay Mission Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4781362?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $39.94 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $767.35 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $14.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781362?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10449913-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4781362?

The tribunal order states: Renee Anne Ngakahikatea Tumai must pay Mission Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4781362?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $39.94 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $767.35 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $14.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781362?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10449913-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Huxley Place, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781362 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781362 — net $2,631.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$14.18	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$767.35	The claim for rubbish removal is proven. I have awarded the sum of $120.00 for the lawns which I regard as proven.
Lawns and Garden work	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$120.00	Lock/key replacement
replace heat pump remote	$39.94	replace heat pump remote
Repairs to lounge (insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs to lounge (insurance excess
Repairs to bedroom 3 (insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs to bedroom 3 (insurance excess
Repairs to bedroom 4 (estimated	$250.00	Repairs to bedroom 4 (estimated
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,631.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,631.91

Order

Renee Anne Ngakahikatea Tumai must pay Mission Property Management Limited as agent for Elianna Lin Yi Xu $2,631.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Wang.
The tenancy began on 1 March 2022 and ended on 21 September 2023. The tenancy ended following an order for termination from this Tribunal on 14 September 2023. The bond was released at that stage to cover rent arrears.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
This application was filed on 15 January 2024 which is more than two months following the end of the tenancy.
When an application is filed more than two months following the end of the tenancy the usual service rules set out in section 91A(1) RTA no longer apply. The landlord must comply with section 91A(2).
Section 91A(2)(b) provides that the landlord may serve the application by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application.
This application was filed on 15 January 2024. The landlord produced correspondence with the tenant on 10 November 2023 in which the tenant provided her new address so that the landlord could return her camera. The landlord then travelled to that address and the tenant confirmed that she was staying there with her sister.
The tenant provided a new address to the landlord just prior to two months before the application was filed and the landlord has used that address to serve this application. In addition, the landlord has provided an email address for the tenant which the landlord and tenant have consistently used to communicate with one another.
In the circumstances, although the address provided by the landlord was given by the tenant just prior to two months before the application was filed, I consider that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the application on the tenant. I therefore direct that the application is to be treated as having been served on the tenant.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy (calculated on a daily basis) to be $14.18. This claim is proved.

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 did not leave the lawns tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an entry inspection report and photos and some exit photos showing that the tenant left a huge amount of rubbish behind and the garden overgrown. The landlord has produced an invoice from Junk2Go in the amount of $767.35 for rubbish removal which I regard as reasonable given the amount left behind. The landlord has also produced an email invoice from Select Lawn Mowing in the amount of $120.00 dated 16 October 2023 which I regard as reasonable.
The claim for rubbish removal is proven. I have awarded the sum of $120.00 for the lawns which I regard as proven. I have not ordered payment of the additional invoice for $40.00 for lawnmowing on 9 November 2024 for a “last cut” as the tenancy had already ended six weeks before, and the grass would have grown in that time.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord produced an invoice from TJ Locksmiths to replace the front door lock and re-key in the amount of $120.00. This claim is proven.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Heat pump remote; and b. A gold mirror which had been in the lounge.
The landlord purchased a replacement heat pump remote online for $39.94. This claim is proved.
The landlord provided an online advertisement for a what appears to be a similar (but not identical) mirror in the amount of $699.00. However Ms Wang confirmed that the landlord had not in fact purchased a replacement mirror. This claim is therefore not proved and is dismissed.

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. Rangehood
The landlord seeks $575.00 for repairs to the rangehood. Ms Wang advised that following the end of the tenancy it was found not to be working. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $575.00 from SKA Electrical and Property Service Limited dated 24 November 2024 which records “replaced kitchen exhaust fan with inline fan”.
The landlord has put no evidence before me to prove that the repairs required to the rangehood are more than fair wear and tear. the circumstances I am unable to find the claim proven. This claim is therefore dismissed. Various damage
The landlord also claims that there has been extensive damage to the property. Ms Wang advised that the landlord has made an insurance claim for the damage and that the landlord has applied six excesses for each area damaged (kitchen, lounge, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3 and bedroom 4). She produced an email from the insurer confirming the claim and excesses applied.
At the hearing the landlord provided a pre-inspection report dated 4 March 2022 (just prior to the start of the tenancy), a report from an inspection that occurred on 25 August 2023 (near the end of the tenancy) and a small selection of photos once the tenant vacated.
I spent some time at the hearing going through the before, during and after photos with Ms Wang and after doing so concluded that the landlord had only proven the following damage: a. A large square hole in one of the lounge walls; b. A very large hole in the wall in bedroom 3; c. A small hole behind the door in bedroom 3 (most likely caused by the door handle hitting the wall); d. A medium sized hole in the wardrobe in bedroom 4.
The damage listed above is more than fair wear and tear. However as there is only damage proven in three rooms I am only prepared to consider three of the six excesses claimed (for the lounge, bedroom 3 and bedroom 4).
I consider that the damage in the lounge and bedroom 3 is significant enough to be over the excess amount and so I award both excess amounts ($650 each, total $1300) although I do note that the ingoing inspection report for bedroom 3 noted in relation to the wall condition “hooks, wear and tear”.
The only damage in relation to bedroom 4 that is proven is a hole in the wardrobe. There no breakdown of amounts for repairs but I do not consider that this damage could be at or above the excess amount. In the absence of any more specific information I am only able to estimate an amount for repair of this damage, which I estimate to be $250.00. I order accordingly.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Mission Property Management Limited as agent for Elianna Lin Yi Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781362 — net $2,631.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$14.18	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$767.35	The claim for rubbish removal is proven. I have awarded the sum of $120.00 for the lawns which I regard as proven.
Lawns and Garden work	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$120.00	Lock/key replacement
replace heat pump remote	$39.94	replace heat pump remote
Repairs to lounge (insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs to lounge (insurance excess
Repairs to bedroom 3 (insurance excess	$650.00	Repairs to bedroom 3 (insurance excess
Repairs to bedroom 4 (estimated	$250.00	Repairs to bedroom 4 (estimated
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,631.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,631.91

Order

Renee Anne Ngakahikatea Tumai must pay Mission Property Management Limited as agent for Elianna Lin Yi Xu $2,631.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Wang.
The tenancy began on 1 March 2022 and ended on 21 September 2023. The tenancy ended following an order for termination from this Tribunal on 14 September 2023. The bond was released at that stage to cover rent arrears.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
This application was filed on 15 January 2024 which is more than two months following the end of the tenancy.
When an application is filed more than two months following the end of the tenancy the usual service rules set out in section 91A(1) RTA no longer apply. The landlord must comply with section 91A(2).
Section 91A(2)(b) provides that the landlord may serve the application by posting it to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application.
This application was filed on 15 January 2024. The landlord produced correspondence with the tenant on 10 November 2023 in which the tenant provided her new address so that the landlord could return her camera. The landlord then travelled to that address and the tenant confirmed that she was staying there with her sister.
The tenant provided a new address to the landlord just prior to two months before the application was filed and the landlord has used that address to serve this application. In addition, the landlord has provided an email address for the tenant which the landlord and tenant have consistently used to communicate with one another.
In the circumstances, although the address provided by the landlord was given by the tenant just prior to two months before the application was filed, I consider that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the application on the tenant. I therefore direct that the application is to be treated as having been served on the tenant.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy (calculated on a daily basis) to be $14.18. This claim is proved.

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 did not leave the lawns tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an entry inspection report and photos and some exit photos showing that the tenant left a huge amount of rubbish behind and the garden overgrown. The landlord has produced an invoice from Junk2Go in the amount of $767.35 for rubbish removal which I regard as reasonable given the amount left behind. The landlord has also produced an email invoice from Select Lawn Mowing in the amount of $120.00 dated 16 October 2023 which I regard as reasonable.
The claim for rubbish removal is proven. I have awarded the sum of $120.00 for the lawns which I regard as proven. I have not ordered payment of the additional invoice for $40.00 for lawnmowing on 9 November 2024 for a “last cut” as the tenancy had already ended six weeks before, and the grass would have grown in that time.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord produced an invoice from TJ Locksmiths to replace the front door lock and re-key in the amount of $120.00. This claim is proven.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Heat pump remote; and b. A gold mirror which had been in the lounge.
The landlord purchased a replacement heat pump remote online for $39.94. This claim is proved.
The landlord provided an online advertisement for a what appears to be a similar (but not identical) mirror in the amount of $699.00. However Ms Wang confirmed that the landlord had not in fact purchased a replacement mirror. This claim is therefore not proved and is dismissed.

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. Rangehood
The landlord seeks $575.00 for repairs to the rangehood. Ms Wang advised that following the end of the tenancy it was found not to be working. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $575.00 from SKA Electrical and Property Service Limited dated 24 November 2024 which records “replaced kitchen exhaust fan with inline fan”.
The landlord has put no evidence before me to prove that the repairs required to the rangehood are more than fair wear and tear. the circumstances I am unable to find the claim proven. This claim is therefore dismissed. Various damage
The landlord also claims that there has been extensive damage to the property. Ms Wang advised that the landlord has made an insurance claim for the damage and that the landlord has applied six excesses for each area damaged (kitchen, lounge, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3 and bedroom 4). She produced an email from the insurer confirming the claim and excesses applied.
At the hearing the landlord provided a pre-inspection report dated 4 March 2022 (just prior to the start of the tenancy), a report from an inspection that occurred on 25 August 2023 (near the end of the tenancy) and a small selection of photos once the tenant vacated.
I spent some time at the hearing going through the before, during and after photos with Ms Wang and after doing so concluded that the landlord had only proven the following damage: a. A large square hole in one of the lounge walls; b. A very large hole in the wall in bedroom 3; c. A small hole behind the door in bedroom 3 (most likely caused by the door handle hitting the wall); d. A medium sized hole in the wardrobe in bedroom 4.
The damage listed above is more than fair wear and tear. However as there is only damage proven in three rooms I am only prepared to consider three of the six excesses claimed (for the lounge, bedroom 3 and bedroom 4).
I consider that the damage in the lounge and bedroom 3 is significant enough to be over the excess amount and so I award both excess amounts ($650 each, total $1300) although I do note that the ingoing inspection report for bedroom 3 noted in relation to the wall condition “hooks, wear and tear”.
The only damage in relation to bedroom 4 that is proven is a hole in the wardrobe. There no breakdown of amounts for repairs but I do not consider that this damage could be at or above the excess amount. In the absence of any more specific information I am only able to estimate an amount for repair of this damage, which I estimate to be $250.00. I order accordingly.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Mission Property Management Limited as agent for Elianna Lin Yi Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781362 — Property damage at 6 Huxley Place, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781362 — Property damage at 6 Huxley Place, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions