What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4791163?

The tribunal order states: Loryn Elsa SP to pay Bright Homes Services Limited As Agent For Baoxiang

How much money was awarded in case 4791163?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $257.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.12 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,071.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Repainting: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791163?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10429135-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4791163?

The tribunal order states: Loryn Elsa SP to pay Bright Homes Services Limited As Agent For Baoxiang

How much money was awarded in case 4791163?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $257.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $186.12 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,071.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Repainting: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791163?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10429135-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4791163 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4791163 — net $3,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 January 2024	$1,071.44	Rent arrears to 21 January 2024
Power	$257.00	Power
Cleaning	$365.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$160.00	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$437.00	Rubbish removal
Wall repainting	$250.00	Wall repainting
Carpet damage staining – nominal damages	$186.12	Carpet damage staining – nominal damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,000.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,000.00

Loryn Elsa SP to pay Bright Homes Services Limited As Agent For Baoxiang Hou $3,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5939213-006) to Bright Homes Services Limited as agent for Baoxiang Hou immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 21 January 2024$1,071.44 Power$257.00 Cleaning$365.00 Carpet Cleaning$253.00 Pest control$160.00 Rubbish removal$437.00 Wall repainting$250.00 Carpet damage staining – nominal damages$186.12 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,000.00 Bond$3,000.00

Reasons

Amanda Tian attended the hearing for the landlord’s agent.

The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment over of the bond following the tenancy ending.

Rent and water arrears?

The tenancy ended on 21 January 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary showing the rent arrears.

The landlord wanted the Tribunal to order $1,000.00 in water arrears. However, under the tenancy agreement the landlord was to pay for the water and there was no evidence that the tenant agreed to a variation of that term.

Moreover, tenants are only liable for their volumetric use of water. The premises’ water meter recorded the tenant and her family’s use of water, and also the landlord’s relatives’ (who lived in the downstairs part of the building) use of water. 1

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2

The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not control pests, and did not remove all their rubbish.

The lawns were not reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy. However, the tenancy agreement refers to the lawns being a provided service and supposedly the tenancy was a boarding arrangement despite the other boarders apparently living independently downstairs. If it was a boarding arrangement, it does not make sense that this tenant should be liable for lawn mowing and there was no evidence of an alternative arrangement.

The landlord did not provide copies of original invoices only a “Tax Invoice” on Bright Homes letterhead compiling various costs. After hearing oral evidence from Ms Tian, including her evidence of the amounts Bright Homes paid out to some of the contractors, I am satisfied that the amounts ordered above for cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, and pest control are proved. 1 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 39. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e).

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for damage and property loss for the following: children’s scribbling on a wall; a microwave; a toilet seat; split bedroom door frame; a missing bathroom vanity drawer; a damaged towel rail; wall damage; damage to the garage door; and a broken kitchen tap.

To succeed in a damage claim, landlords must prove any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, tenants 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. 3

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. 4 The landlord’s excess is $550.00. However, the landlord has not claimed for any damage and none of the costs for damage ordered in this case is for damage covered beyond the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing intentional damage that is or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to the tenant does and their guests. 5

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. 6

I am satisfied that the scribbles on the wall occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The original wall paint does not look in good condition. The paintwork has not been done. Ms Tian says a contractor provided a quote for $828.00, but did not produce the quote, only Bright Homes’ own “Quote”. I order $250.00 for repair of the damage.

There was no invoice for repair of the toilet seat. This claim is dismissed.

I am not satisfied that the microwave’s demise was not due to ordinary wear and tear. The microwave is old. Such appliances are only expected to work for about seven years. There was no evidence the tenant misused the microwave. This claim is dismissed. 3 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA, s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The photographs show the carpet had stains prior to it being cleaned. The Tribunal has made an order for the cleaning. There are no photographs showing the state of the carpet after it was cleaned. However, I accept Ms Tian’s evidence that there were residual stains. Nominal damages of $186.12 are awarded for this, being the remainder of the bond after the other monetary orders are made.

or any evidence the carpets were replaced. The premises have been re-let. It does not appear the carpets need replacing on the current evidence. However, I make no decision on the cost of replacing the carpets. The landlord may bring a further claim supported by evidence in respect to the carpets if the carpets must be replaced and are replaced. Filing fee

The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord substantially succeeded in its claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4791163 — net $3,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 January 2024	$1,071.44	Rent arrears to 21 January 2024
Power	$257.00	Power
Cleaning	$365.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$160.00	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$437.00	Rubbish removal
Wall repainting	$250.00	Wall repainting
Carpet damage staining – nominal damages	$186.12	Carpet damage staining – nominal damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,000.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,000.00

Order

Loryn Elsa SP to pay Bright Homes Services Limited As Agent For Baoxiang Hou $3,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5939213-006) to Bright Homes Services Limited as agent for Baoxiang Hou immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 21 January 2024$1,071.44 Power$257.00 Cleaning$365.00 Carpet Cleaning$253.00 Pest control$160.00 Rubbish removal$437.00 Wall repainting$250.00 Carpet damage staining – nominal damages$186.12 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,000.00 Bond$3,000.00

Reasons

Amanda Tian attended the hearing for the landlord’s agent.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment over of the bond following the tenancy ending.

Rent and water arrears?

The tenancy ended on 21 January 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary showing the rent arrears.
The landlord wanted the Tribunal to order $1,000.00 in water arrears. However, under the tenancy agreement the landlord was to pay for the water and there was no evidence that the tenant agreed to a variation of that term.
Moreover, tenants are only liable for their volumetric use of water. The premises’ water meter recorded the tenant and her family’s use of water, and also the landlord’s relatives’ (who lived in the downstairs part of the building) use of water. 1

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not control pests, and did not remove all their rubbish.
The lawns were not reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy. However, the tenancy agreement refers to the lawns being a provided service and supposedly the tenancy was a boarding arrangement despite the other boarders apparently living independently downstairs. If it was a boarding arrangement, it does not make sense that this tenant should be liable for lawn mowing and there was no evidence of an alternative arrangement.
The landlord did not provide copies of original invoices only a “Tax Invoice” on Bright Homes letterhead compiling various costs. After hearing oral evidence from Ms Tian, including her evidence of the amounts Bright Homes paid out to some of the contractors, I am satisfied that the amounts ordered above for cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, and pest control are proved. 1 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 39. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e).

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for damage and property loss for the following: children’s scribbling on a wall; a microwave; a toilet seat; split bedroom door frame; a missing bathroom vanity drawer; a damaged towel rail; wall damage; damage to the garage door; and a broken kitchen tap.
To succeed in a damage claim, landlords must prove any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, tenants 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. 3
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. 4 The landlord’s excess is $550.00. However, the landlord has not claimed for any damage and none of the costs for damage ordered in this case is for damage covered beyond the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing intentional damage that is or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to the tenant does and their guests. 5
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. 6
I am satisfied that the scribbles on the wall occurred during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The original wall paint does not look in good condition. The paintwork has not been done. Ms Tian says a contractor provided a quote for $828.00, but did not produce the quote, only Bright Homes’ own “Quote”. I order $250.00 for repair of the damage.
There was no invoice for repair of the toilet seat. This claim is dismissed.
I am not satisfied that the microwave’s demise was not due to ordinary wear and tear. The microwave is old. Such appliances are only expected to work for about seven years. There was no evidence the tenant misused the microwave. This claim is dismissed. 3 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 5 RTA, s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The photographs show the carpet had stains prior to it being cleaned. The Tribunal has made an order for the cleaning. There are no photographs showing the state of the carpet after it was cleaned. However, I accept Ms Tian’s evidence that there were residual stains. Nominal damages of $186.12 are awarded for this, being the remainder of the bond after the other monetary orders are made.
or any evidence the carpets were replaced. The premises have been re-let. It does not appear the carpets need replacing on the current evidence. However, I make no decision on the cost of replacing the carpets. The landlord may bring a further claim supported by evidence in respect to the carpets if the carpets must be replaced and are replaced. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord substantially succeeded in its claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791163 — Rent arrears at 30 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791163 — Rent arrears at 30 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent and water arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent and water arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions