What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4824037?

The tribunal order states: Hui Wang and Alex Wang must pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 4824037?

Cleaning: $609.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,472.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $874.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824037?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10777144-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4824037?

The tribunal order states: Hui Wang and Alex Wang must pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 4824037?

Cleaning: $609.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,472.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $874.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824037?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10777144-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 131 Grand Drive, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824037 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4824037 — net $2,911.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Repairs to walls	$874.00	Repairs: Repairs to walls
Repairs: Garage door replacement	$2,000.00	Repairs: Garage door replacement
Repairs: Garage door header replacement	$2,472.50	Repairs: Garage door header replacement
Carpet Cleaning and repairs	$609.50	Carpet Cleaning and repairs
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$2,911.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,911.44

Order

Hui Wang and Alex Wang must pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Hiu Ying, John Chen Cheung, Hsiang $2,911.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (3289515-006) to Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Hiu Ying, John Chen Cheung, Hsiang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were assisted by the court- appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consist of a stand-alone two-level house with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they are no longer seeking payment of rent arrears from the tenants.
The landlord raises the following claims against the tenants: a. Compensation for patching hole in kitchen ceiling b. Laundry hole repair c. Garage door replacement d. Garage door header replacement e. Carpet repairs f. Cleaning g. Unlawful use of garage by tenant h. Breach of Tenancy Agreement – exceeding number of tenants i. Subletting property without consent of landlord j. Tenant failing to reinstate premises at end of tenancy

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. The landlord claims $115.00 as per the invoice dated 17 July 2024 from Integrity Business Group. Photographic evidence of the outgoing inspection was also provided in support of this claim.
The tenant does not accept this claim. They say that the house had some water leaks which damaged their bed frame. They also say that the mould caused the stains on the walls. They hired a cleaning company which told them the marks could not be removed because of the mould. The tenants did not bring this to the attention of the landlord during the tenancy as they only discovered this when they moved out. The landlord says that their cleaner managed to clean the marks off.
I am satisfied with the evidence provided in support of this claim. I find that the house was not left reasonably clean and that the small amount charged for cleaning is reasonable.
The amount ordered is 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. 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. Carpet Repairs:
The landlord says that there were 3 areas of damaged carpet (3 holes) in the master bedroom. They say that the carpet was brand new when the tenants moved in. Outgoing photographic evidence has been filed in support of this claim by the landlord. I have also sighted an invoice from Carpet Repairs Limited dated 18 July 2024.
The tenant says that they accept the landlord’s claim for the carpet.
The amount ordered is proved. Laundry hole repair:
The landlord says that the tenants drilled a hole in the wall to install a washing machine.
The tenant says that they used the garage as an art studio and moved the washing machine from the garage into the bathroom. The tenant says that they repaired the hole and re-painted the room.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in the form of entry and exit inspections. The evidence clearly confirms the damage to the walls resulting from this. I have also sighted the invoice from Reliable Building Limited confirming the amount claimed for work relating to repairs to bathroom and garage wall damage.
I am satisfied that this amounts to intentional damage. It is not fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved. Replace damage garage door:
The landlord says that the tenants removed the garage door and replaced it with a glass bifold door.
The landlord says that when the tenants moved out they reinstalled the original garage door. They say that significant damage was done during the reinstallation process which resulted in the door needing to be replaced. The landlord does not know how old the garage door was.
The landlord claims for a new replacement garage door. The expense claim is $4114.13 including GST.
The tenants say that when they rent a house they need an art studio. They say that they told the original property manager that a condition on renting the house was that they could use part of the house as an art studio. The tenant was not able to produce this agreement from the previous property manager. They say that they received verbal permission to remove the garage door. The tenants also say that they had an email agreement from the previous property manager (Nick) to reinstall the original garage door.
The landlord does not accept this allegation.
I have sighted photographic evidence of the original garage door. I have also been provided with an expense claim from Reliable Building Limited for the amount claimed. I have also considered the letter provided by Reliable Building Limited dated 26 August 2024. The writer confirms that “the damage caused by a suspected installation of an external temporary false wall was extensive. Due to structural damage, corrosion, rot, the garage door’s integrity was compromised, creating a potential safety risk. Replacing the entire door was essential to maintain the property’s safety and security”. They further confirm that “the existing garage door was unsalvageable”.
I have carefully considered the photographic evidence of the original garage door. The door was clearly not in a new condition. Parts of the door appeared well worn with clear and visible signs of ageing. Although the tenant should not be liable for providing the landlord with a brand-new garage door, by the same token the tenant should be held accountable for actions which are either unlawful or a breach of their obligations as tenants. Removing a garage door and installing a bifold glass door without the written consent of the owner is a clear breach of tenant responsibilities.
I accept the landlord’s position that no consent was ever provided to the tenant in respect of this alteration. I have also sighted the landlord’s 14-day breach notice dated 12 February 2024 served on the tenants in respect of this.
I find this claim proven. I award a reduced amount which reflects the age and condition of the original garage door.
I have taken into account 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. Replacement of garage door header:
The landlord says that the garage door header was damaged when the garage door was removed by the tenant. The amount claimed is $2840.50 and an expense claim from Reliable Building Limited was filed in support of this claim.
The tenant says that they never touched this part of the structure. The tenants do not accept this claim. They also question the amount claimed. I also acknowledge the photographic evidence handed up by the tenants during the hearing.
The landlord says that Reliable Building Limited have confirmed that the damage appears to be a result of the incorrect removal and installation of the garage door. The letter from Reliable Building Limited advised that “the garage header was also significantly damaged due to what appears to be as a result of the incorrect removal and reinstallation of the prior garage door. The damage was such to the header that it could not be repaired via simplistic measures and required complete replacement of the broken panels and cracks permeating through the entire panels. Given the extent of the damage and the potential safety risks involved, I believe that the costs incurred were reasonable and necessary to return the structure to a usable function of like for like state”.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided in support that the tenants are liable for this structural damage. I find that it is intentional damage which they must be held liable for.
The full amount claimed by the landlord in respect of the garage door header is proven and awarded.
The landlord also makes the following claims: Patch hole in kitchen ceiling:
The landlord says that there was an original rangehood which did not vent outside. The landlord replaced this rangehood in June 2022. They say that when the tenants moved out they removed the rangehood cover which exposed the hole in the ceiling.
The landlords claim for compensation in respect of patching the hole in the ceiling. They have provided an invoice dated 5 August 2024 for $368.00.
The tenants say that they installed the rangehood cover as one was not provided. They removed the cover when they moved out on the basis that it belonged to them.
The landlord produced an email from G Force Limited which advised that the hole was covered when they installed the new rangehood.
I do not accept this claim. While I find it implausible that the rangehood installers would not provide the ventilation cover when installing the new rangehood I do not accept that the tenants should be liable for patching a hole in the ceiling which was there to begin with. The landlord has not claimed for a replacement cover, instead they are claiming for compensation relating to a ceiling hole. The entry photographs confirm this position.
The claim in respect the kitchen ceiling hole is therefore dismissed.
The landlord also made the following claims during the hearing: a. Unlawful use of garage by tenant b. Tenant exceeding maximum number of tenants are based on the Tenancy Agreement c. Subletting the property without consent of landlord d. Failure to reinstate premises at end of tenancy.
These claims were not included in the landlord’s original application filed on 20 March 2024.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages in respect of these claims.
Because these claims were not recorded in the original application they will not be considered as part of this application. Should the landlord wish to pursue these claims then they will need to file a new application with the appropriate evidence in support.
Because Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Hiu Ying, John Chen Cheung, Hsiang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4824037 — net $2,911.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Repairs to walls	$874.00	Repairs: Repairs to walls
Repairs: Garage door replacement	$2,000.00	Repairs: Garage door replacement
Repairs: Garage door header replacement	$2,472.50	Repairs: Garage door header replacement
Carpet Cleaning and repairs	$609.50	Carpet Cleaning and repairs
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$2,911.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,911.44

Order

Hui Wang and Alex Wang must pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Hiu Ying, John Chen Cheung, Hsiang $2,911.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (3289515-006) to Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Hiu Ying, John Chen Cheung, Hsiang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were assisted by the court- appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consist of a stand-alone two-level house with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they are no longer seeking payment of rent arrears from the tenants.
The landlord raises the following claims against the tenants: a. Compensation for patching hole in kitchen ceiling b. Laundry hole repair c. Garage door replacement d. Garage door header replacement e. Carpet repairs f. Cleaning g. Unlawful use of garage by tenant h. Breach of Tenancy Agreement – exceeding number of tenants i. Subletting property without consent of landlord j. Tenant failing to reinstate premises at end of tenancy

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. The landlord claims $115.00 as per the invoice dated 17 July 2024 from Integrity Business Group. Photographic evidence of the outgoing inspection was also provided in support of this claim.
The tenant does not accept this claim. They say that the house had some water leaks which damaged their bed frame. They also say that the mould caused the stains on the walls. They hired a cleaning company which told them the marks could not be removed because of the mould. The tenants did not bring this to the attention of the landlord during the tenancy as they only discovered this when they moved out. The landlord says that their cleaner managed to clean the marks off.
I am satisfied with the evidence provided in support of this claim. I find that the house was not left reasonably clean and that the small amount charged for cleaning is reasonable.
The amount ordered is 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. 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. Carpet Repairs:
The landlord says that there were 3 areas of damaged carpet (3 holes) in the master bedroom. They say that the carpet was brand new when the tenants moved in. Outgoing photographic evidence has been filed in support of this claim by the landlord. I have also sighted an invoice from Carpet Repairs Limited dated 18 July 2024.
The tenant says that they accept the landlord’s claim for the carpet.
The amount ordered is proved. Laundry hole repair:
The landlord says that the tenants drilled a hole in the wall to install a washing machine.
The tenant says that they used the garage as an art studio and moved the washing machine from the garage into the bathroom. The tenant says that they repaired the hole and re-painted the room.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in the form of entry and exit inspections. The evidence clearly confirms the damage to the walls resulting from this. I have also sighted the invoice from Reliable Building Limited confirming the amount claimed for work relating to repairs to bathroom and garage wall damage.
I am satisfied that this amounts to intentional damage. It is not fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proved. Replace damage garage door:
The landlord says that the tenants removed the garage door and replaced it with a glass bifold door.
The landlord says that when the tenants moved out they reinstalled the original garage door. They say that significant damage was done during the reinstallation process which resulted in the door needing to be replaced. The landlord does not know how old the garage door was.
The landlord claims for a new replacement garage door. The expense claim is $4114.13 including GST.
The tenants say that when they rent a house they need an art studio. They say that they told the original property manager that a condition on renting the house was that they could use part of the house as an art studio. The tenant was not able to produce this agreement from the previous property manager. They say that they received verbal permission to remove the garage door. The tenants also say that they had an email agreement from the previous property manager (Nick) to reinstall the original garage door.
The landlord does not accept this allegation.
I have sighted photographic evidence of the original garage door. I have also been provided with an expense claim from Reliable Building Limited for the amount claimed. I have also considered the letter provided by Reliable Building Limited dated 26 August 2024. The writer confirms that “the damage caused by a suspected installation of an external temporary false wall was extensive. Due to structural damage, corrosion, rot, the garage door’s integrity was compromised, creating a potential safety risk. Replacing the entire door was essential to maintain the property’s safety and security”. They further confirm that “the existing garage door was unsalvageable”.
I have carefully considered the photographic evidence of the original garage door. The door was clearly not in a new condition. Parts of the door appeared well worn with clear and visible signs of ageing. Although the tenant should not be liable for providing the landlord with a brand-new garage door, by the same token the tenant should be held accountable for actions which are either unlawful or a breach of their obligations as tenants. Removing a garage door and installing a bifold glass door without the written consent of the owner is a clear breach of tenant responsibilities.
I accept the landlord’s position that no consent was ever provided to the tenant in respect of this alteration. I have also sighted the landlord’s 14-day breach notice dated 12 February 2024 served on the tenants in respect of this.
I find this claim proven. I award a reduced amount which reflects the age and condition of the original garage door.
I have taken into account 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. Replacement of garage door header:
The landlord says that the garage door header was damaged when the garage door was removed by the tenant. The amount claimed is $2840.50 and an expense claim from Reliable Building Limited was filed in support of this claim.
The tenant says that they never touched this part of the structure. The tenants do not accept this claim. They also question the amount claimed. I also acknowledge the photographic evidence handed up by the tenants during the hearing.
The landlord says that Reliable Building Limited have confirmed that the damage appears to be a result of the incorrect removal and installation of the garage door. The letter from Reliable Building Limited advised that “the garage header was also significantly damaged due to what appears to be as a result of the incorrect removal and reinstallation of the prior garage door. The damage was such to the header that it could not be repaired via simplistic measures and required complete replacement of the broken panels and cracks permeating through the entire panels. Given the extent of the damage and the potential safety risks involved, I believe that the costs incurred were reasonable and necessary to return the structure to a usable function of like for like state”.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided in support that the tenants are liable for this structural damage. I find that it is intentional damage which they must be held liable for.
The full amount claimed by the landlord in respect of the garage door header is proven and awarded.
The landlord also makes the following claims: Patch hole in kitchen ceiling:
The landlord says that there was an original rangehood which did not vent outside. The landlord replaced this rangehood in June 2022. They say that when the tenants moved out they removed the rangehood cover which exposed the hole in the ceiling.
The landlords claim for compensation in respect of patching the hole in the ceiling. They have provided an invoice dated 5 August 2024 for $368.00.
The tenants say that they installed the rangehood cover as one was not provided. They removed the cover when they moved out on the basis that it belonged to them.
The landlord produced an email from G Force Limited which advised that the hole was covered when they installed the new rangehood.
I do not accept this claim. While I find it implausible that the rangehood installers would not provide the ventilation cover when installing the new rangehood I do not accept that the tenants should be liable for patching a hole in the ceiling which was there to begin with. The landlord has not claimed for a replacement cover, instead they are claiming for compensation relating to a ceiling hole. The entry photographs confirm this position.
The claim in respect the kitchen ceiling hole is therefore dismissed.
The landlord also made the following claims during the hearing: a. Unlawful use of garage by tenant b. Tenant exceeding maximum number of tenants are based on the Tenancy Agreement c. Subletting the property without consent of landlord d. Failure to reinstate premises at end of tenancy.
These claims were not included in the landlord’s original application filed on 20 March 2024.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages in respect of these claims.
Because these claims were not recorded in the original application they will not be considered as part of this application. Should the landlord wish to pursue these claims then they will need to file a new application with the appropriate evidence in support.
Because Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Hiu Ying, John Chen Cheung, Hsiang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824037 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 131 Grand Drive, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824037 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 131 Grand Drive, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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