What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820318 about?

The tribunal order states: Phebe Kate Robson must pay [The landlord/s] $5,081.43 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4820318?

Cleaning: $333.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,521.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,976.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $512.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Door: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $80.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $231.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820318?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10451442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820318 about?

The tribunal order states: Phebe Kate Robson must pay [The landlord/s] $5,081.43 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4820318?

Cleaning: $333.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,521.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,976.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $512.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Door: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $80.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $231.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820318?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10451442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Blacklock Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820318 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820318 — net $5,081.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/12/2023	$3,976.94	Rent arrears to 28/12/2023
Water rates	$231.20	Water rates
Repairs - painting	$1,521.80	Repairs - painting
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$333.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal and cleaning of exterior	$115.00	Rubbish removal and cleaning of exterior
Replace garage door remote	$80.60	Replace garage door remote
Repairs: - replacement of fridge door	$512.45	Repairs: - replacement of fridge door
Repairs: Replace bedroom door	$400.00	Repairs: Replace bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,081.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,081.43

Order

Phebe Kate Robson must pay [The landlord/s] $5,081.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears and water rates, b. compensation, c. refund of the bond, and d. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 un-likely, 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2020. The tenancy ended on 28 December 2024.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy were: a. Rent arrears to 28 December 2024: $3,976.94. b. Water rates from 13 September 2023 – 29 December 2023: $231.20.

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 RTA does not require the premises to be 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. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was: a. that the property was dirty throughout including the oven, b. that the carpets were marked, c. that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked. d. That there was rubbish left outside the property that required removal.
Rubbish removal, advanced carpet cleaning and general cleaning was required.
The tenant submitted that she had kept the place very clean during the tenancy but ran out of time to attend to some cleaning at the end.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support their claim.
I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be lived in by the owner.
The tenant questioned the claim for the carpet cleaning however the photographs and evidence establish the carpets were extremely stained and the cost included remedying the stains. I am satisfied the cost is reasonable based on the evidence provided.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Garage door remote. I will deal with this claim below.
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. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
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. Careless damage
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. Intentional damage
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.
I must consider 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. Analysis
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to walls i. The landlord sought $3,804.50 for internal repainting. ii. The landlord gave evidence by way of photographs of dents, marks and inadequate repair work throughout the property. iii. The tenant submitted the damage was largely fair wear and tear. iv. I am satisfied the damages largely go beyond that and can fairly be considered the consequences of careless actions. v. Of that claimed I have allowed for depreciation (50%) as the painting was 5 years old and fair wear and tear (10%) accepting the property was rented for 3.5 years by the tenant with young children. b. Damage to a bedroom door. i. The landlord claimed the replacement cost of a bedroom door of $560.00. ii. The tenant gave evidence that the damage was caused by the door being left open and the wind slamming it, ripping it off the hinges. iii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. iv. I find that the damage to the bedroom door was careless and could have been covered by the landlord’s insurance. v. I therefore order the sum of $400.00 being the insurance excess amount in respect of the bedroom door. c. Damage to fridge door i. The landlord claimed $512.45 for a new fridge door and installation. ii. The landlord provided evidence of damage to the stainless-steel fridge. The damage included dents and what appears to be intentional scratch marks, possibly a child scratching letters on the fridge. iii. The landlord also indicate that the replacement cost of a new fridge would be approximately $1,200.00. iv. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. v. I find that the damage to the fridge door was intentional. vi. I therefore order the sum of $512.45 in respect to the fridge repair. d. Damage to Garage Door and one remote not returned. i. The landlord claimed $780.00 for the cost to supply and install the garage door auto opener. ii. The garage door openers gearing was stripped. The landlord’s position was that the garage door auto opener was damaged by the tenant. iii. The landlord did however provide an email to the Tribunal from the garage repairer saying they could not determine the cause of the damage. A later message from the garage repairer to the landlord said that the damage could have been caused by overloading the door. iv. The tenant’s position was that the garage door auto opener was damaged through wear and tear and potentially a lack of maintenance. The tenant said the garage stopped working in the last few days of the tenancy. Her father is an experienced electrician. He phoned the garage door company Dominator who told them the garage unit should have been serviced and it was not, and this probably caused the damage. v. During the hearing the cost of one garage remote was discussed to be $80.60. vi. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant is responsible for the garage unit. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the damage was caused by careless or intentional actions. vii. I award the cost of the garage remote and dismiss the claim in respect of the garage door auto opener.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord requested name suppression for the owner, not the landlord agency. As the application is wholly successful the Tribunal must order suppression. (section 95A(1) RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820318 — net $5,081.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/12/2023	$3,976.94	Rent arrears to 28/12/2023
Water rates	$231.20	Water rates
Repairs - painting	$1,521.80	Repairs - painting
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$333.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal and cleaning of exterior	$115.00	Rubbish removal and cleaning of exterior
Replace garage door remote	$80.60	Replace garage door remote
Repairs: - replacement of fridge door	$512.45	Repairs: - replacement of fridge door
Repairs: Replace bedroom door	$400.00	Repairs: Replace bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,081.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,081.43

Order

Phebe Kate Robson must pay [The landlord/s] $5,081.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears and water rates, b. compensation, c. refund of the bond, and d. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 un-likely, 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2020. The tenancy ended on 28 December 2024.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy were: a. Rent arrears to 28 December 2024: $3,976.94. b. Water rates from 13 September 2023 – 29 December 2023: $231.20.

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 RTA does not require the premises to be 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. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was: a. that the property was dirty throughout including the oven, b. that the carpets were marked, c. that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked. d. That there was rubbish left outside the property that required removal.
Rubbish removal, advanced carpet cleaning and general cleaning was required.
The tenant submitted that she had kept the place very clean during the tenancy but ran out of time to attend to some cleaning at the end.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support their claim.
I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord advised that the property was cleaned to a level that it was able to be lived in by the owner.
The tenant questioned the claim for the carpet cleaning however the photographs and evidence establish the carpets were extremely stained and the cost included remedying the stains. I am satisfied the cost is reasonable based on the evidence provided.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Garage door remote. I will deal with this claim below.
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. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
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. Careless damage
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. Intentional damage
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.
I must consider 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. Analysis
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to walls i. The landlord sought $3,804.50 for internal repainting. ii. The landlord gave evidence by way of photographs of dents, marks and inadequate repair work throughout the property. iii. The tenant submitted the damage was largely fair wear and tear. iv. I am satisfied the damages largely go beyond that and can fairly be considered the consequences of careless actions. v. Of that claimed I have allowed for depreciation (50%) as the painting was 5 years old and fair wear and tear (10%) accepting the property was rented for 3.5 years by the tenant with young children. b. Damage to a bedroom door. i. The landlord claimed the replacement cost of a bedroom door of $560.00. ii. The tenant gave evidence that the damage was caused by the door being left open and the wind slamming it, ripping it off the hinges. iii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. iv. I find that the damage to the bedroom door was careless and could have been covered by the landlord’s insurance. v. I therefore order the sum of $400.00 being the insurance excess amount in respect of the bedroom door. c. Damage to fridge door i. The landlord claimed $512.45 for a new fridge door and installation. ii. The landlord provided evidence of damage to the stainless-steel fridge. The damage included dents and what appears to be intentional scratch marks, possibly a child scratching letters on the fridge. iii. The landlord also indicate that the replacement cost of a new fridge would be approximately $1,200.00. iv. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. v. I find that the damage to the fridge door was intentional. vi. I therefore order the sum of $512.45 in respect to the fridge repair. d. Damage to Garage Door and one remote not returned. i. The landlord claimed $780.00 for the cost to supply and install the garage door auto opener. ii. The garage door openers gearing was stripped. The landlord’s position was that the garage door auto opener was damaged by the tenant. iii. The landlord did however provide an email to the Tribunal from the garage repairer saying they could not determine the cause of the damage. A later message from the garage repairer to the landlord said that the damage could have been caused by overloading the door. iv. The tenant’s position was that the garage door auto opener was damaged through wear and tear and potentially a lack of maintenance. The tenant said the garage stopped working in the last few days of the tenancy. Her father is an experienced electrician. He phoned the garage door company Dominator who told them the garage unit should have been serviced and it was not, and this probably caused the damage. v. During the hearing the cost of one garage remote was discussed to be $80.60. vi. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant is responsible for the garage unit. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the damage was caused by careless or intentional actions. vii. I award the cost of the garage remote and dismiss the claim in respect of the garage door auto opener.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord requested name suppression for the owner, not the landlord agency. As the application is wholly successful the Tribunal must order suppression. (section 95A(1) RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820318 — Rent arrears at 2 Blacklock Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820318 — Rent arrears at 2 Blacklock Road, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

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