What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4785618 about?

The tribunal order states: Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty must pay [The landlord/s] $12,237.97 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4785618?

Eviction Charges: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,860.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,618.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785618?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10730357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4785618 about?

The tribunal order states: Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty must pay [The landlord/s] $12,237.97 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4785618?

Eviction Charges: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,860.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,618.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785618?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10730357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4785618 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4785618 — 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 4785618 — net $12,237.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,860.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,618.35	Water rates
Eviction charges	$200.00	Eviction charges
Lock/key replacement	$379.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning / rubbish removal	$1,725.00	Cleaning / rubbish removal
Damage	$7,000.00	Damage
Pest control	$172.50	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,237.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,237.97

Claims and awards for application 4785618 — net $12,237.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,860.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $1,618.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Eviction charges

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Eviction charges

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $379.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning / rubbish removal

Amount: $1,725.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning / rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty must pay [The landlord/s] $12,237.97 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $737.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,860.00 Water rates$1,618.35 Eviction charges$200.00 Lock/key replacement$379.50 Cleaning / rubbish removal$1,725.00 Damage$7,000.00 Pest control$172.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$12,975.79 Minus bond-$737.82 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$12,237.97

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 17 October 2022, the sole tenant is Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on the basis that the premises had been damaged by the tenant, the premises were unclean, and that she had a dog.
The tenant did not vacate the premises as she was required to do. Therefore the landlord applied and enforced an eviction via the Bailiffs.
The landlord found extensive rubbish and damage to the premises, and that is the subject of this claim before me.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears to the date of the eviction, being 5 December 2024.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears of the amount claimed, and that is ordered in full.
The landlord also claims the volumetric water charges owing. This is also established and ordered.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case the photographs show that the premises were very dirty when returned to the landlord, and there was extensive rubbish. The landlord has claimed $1,725.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal, which is supported by an invoice from the cleaner. This claim is high, but commensurate with the work that would be needed to get the premises back to a state of being reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Insurance excesses
The landlord has claimed 14 insurance excesses of $500.00, and that is supported by an email from the insurer setting out what would be covered and the respective invoices, that included the following (noting some rooms have more than one excess): a. Living area – wall walls damaged, repaired and repainted. The flooring in lounge damaged from dog and window damaged. One door was repaired and repainted. b. Kitchen – cooktop and oven damaged, cabinetry damaged, floor sanded to repair damage from dog, kitchen sink also damaged. c. Bedroom 1 – reglaze windows, repaint walls and replace power socket. d. Bedroom 3 – repair wall, repainting walls, damaged carpet from pet and two doors replaced and painted. e. Bathroom 1 – cabinet damaged, and one wall damaged. f. Bathroom 2 – toilet damaged, door frame and walls damaged, cabinet damaged. g. Garage – Garage door was damaged (probably hit by car) so garage door was replaced. h. Exterior damage – broken fence and deck, damaged cladding, tenant had modified gate, steps damaged.
I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for any of the amounts claimed, in particular, she has not proven the damage is not careless or intentional damage.
This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Lock change and eviction fee
The landlord incurred costs for changing the locks as part of the eviction and with the Bailiffs fee. When the Tribunal terminated the tenancy, the tenant was required to leave the premises and return possession to the landlord.
When the tenant failed to do that, then the landlord was entitled to have her evicted, and the tenant became liable for the costs incurred by the landlord in that process. These claims are established and ordered in full. Pest control
The landlord states that when the premises were returned there was a cockroach infestation. Given the amount of rubbish on the premises, that would be consistent with a concurrent cockroach problem. The tenant is required to return the premises reasonably clean, which would mean the premises being free of an insect infestation. This claim is established and ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case landlord has been wholly successful, and requests suppression, so landlord name suppression is ordered.

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 4785618 — net $12,237.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,860.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,618.35	Water rates
Eviction charges	$200.00	Eviction charges
Lock/key replacement	$379.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning / rubbish removal	$1,725.00	Cleaning / rubbish removal
Damage	$7,000.00	Damage
Pest control	$172.50	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,237.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,237.97

Claims and awards for application 4785618 — net $12,237.97 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,860.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $1,618.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Eviction charges

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Eviction charges

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $379.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning / rubbish removal

Amount: $1,725.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning / rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty must pay [The landlord/s] $12,237.97 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $737.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 17 October 2022, the sole tenant is Kylie Marie Grace Finnerty.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on the basis that the premises had been damaged by the tenant, the premises were unclean, and that she had a dog.
The tenant did not vacate the premises as she was required to do. Therefore the landlord applied and enforced an eviction via the Bailiffs.
The landlord found extensive rubbish and damage to the premises, and that is the subject of this claim before me.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears to the date of the eviction, being 5 December 2024.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears of the amount claimed, and that is ordered in full.
The landlord also claims the volumetric water charges owing. This is also established and ordered.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case the photographs show that the premises were very dirty when returned to the landlord, and there was extensive rubbish. The landlord has claimed $1,725.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal, which is supported by an invoice from the cleaner. This claim is high, but commensurate with the work that would be needed to get the premises back to a state of being reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Insurance excesses
The landlord has claimed 14 insurance excesses of $500.00, and that is supported by an email from the insurer setting out what would be covered and the respective invoices, that included the following (noting some rooms have more than one excess): a. Living area – wall walls damaged, repaired and repainted. The flooring in lounge damaged from dog and window damaged. One door was repaired and repainted. b. Kitchen – cooktop and oven damaged, cabinetry damaged, floor sanded to repair damage from dog, kitchen sink also damaged. c. Bedroom 1 – reglaze windows, repaint walls and replace power socket. d. Bedroom 3 – repair wall, repainting walls, damaged carpet from pet and two doors replaced and painted. e. Bathroom 1 – cabinet damaged, and one wall damaged. f. Bathroom 2 – toilet damaged, door frame and walls damaged, cabinet damaged. g. Garage – Garage door was damaged (probably hit by car) so garage door was replaced. h. Exterior damage – broken fence and deck, damaged cladding, tenant had modified gate, steps damaged.
I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for any of the amounts claimed, in particular, she has not proven the damage is not careless or intentional damage.
This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Lock change and eviction fee
The landlord incurred costs for changing the locks as part of the eviction and with the Bailiffs fee. When the Tribunal terminated the tenancy, the tenant was required to leave the premises and return possession to the landlord.
When the tenant failed to do that, then the landlord was entitled to have her evicted, and the tenant became liable for the costs incurred by the landlord in that process. These claims are established and ordered in full. Pest control
The landlord states that when the premises were returned there was a cockroach infestation. Given the amount of rubbish on the premises, that would be consistent with a concurrent cockroach problem. The tenant is required to return the premises reasonably clean, which would mean the premises being free of an insect infestation. This claim is established and ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case landlord has been wholly successful, and requests suppression, so landlord name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785618 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785618 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions