What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4825738 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $796.29 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4825738?

Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $346.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4825738?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4825738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508511-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4825738 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $796.29 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4825738?

Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $346.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4825738?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4825738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508511-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Hauraki Crescent, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4825738 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4825738 — net $796.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$346.29	Water rates
Internal plastering repairs	$450.00	Internal plastering repairs
Net award	$796.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$796.29

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $796.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. The registrar attempted to call the tenant’s last known number, however there was no answer.
The tenancy ended on 8 February 2024. Following re-entry to the premises, the landlord applied to the tribunal for reimbursement of outgoings and costs as follows: a. Unpaid water rates; b. Cleaning; c. Rubbish removal; d. Plaster repair for a hole in the wall; and e. Replacement of carpet.
I will deal with each claim separately below. Water rates
The landlord provided records of the water rates for the entirety of the tenancy. The tenant moved in on 14 August 2023 and moved out on 8 February 2024. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the consumption rates over that period, being $346.29. An order is made accordingly. Cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement for the cost of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. While the landlord presented an invoice for the claimed amount, she was unable to provide evidence (such as photographs) of the state the premises were left in by the tenant. The landlord provided some photos of the carpet (only), which were relevant to a separate claim and do not give sufficient insight into how clean the property was at the end of the tenancy.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.” Without evidence of the state the premises were left in, I am not satisfied that the premises were not “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” at the end of the tenancy. This part of the claim is dismissed. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks reimbursement for the cost of a skip bin and collection. An invoice and receipt for those costs were provided, but again no photographic evidence was provided to show the rubbish and waste the landlord says was left by this tenant. Nor did the landlord have photographic evidence of the condition the property was in at the start of the tenancy. Without such evidence, the landlord has not made out her claim, and this part of the claim is also dismissed. Plaster repair
The landlord seeks reimbursement of part of the cost of plaster repairs completed in the property. The total cost of the repairs was $1000. The invoice is separated into internal repairs of $900 and external repairs of $100. The landlord stated there were two internal areas that needed repairing, and so seeks reimbursement of half the internal repairs cost, being $450.
The landlord provided a photo of a reasonably substantial hole in the plaster of the wall, in which the plaster has completely fallen out, and the stud of the wall is exposed. The landlord states she spoke to the tenant about the hole and the tenant stated it must have happened when they moved out.
During the hearing, the landlord confirmed she did not have photographs of the condition of the wall at the start of the tenancy however she indicated she did have a checklist recording the condition of the property which was completed at the start of the tenant’s tenancy. The landlord says it recorded that the walls were in good condition. Having received that checklist via email after the hearing, I am satisfied the walls were all in acceptable condition at the start of the tenancy and the photographed hole was not present when the tenant moved in. I find it is more probable than not that the hole was caused by the tenant.
An order for reimbursement of the cost of repairing the hole in the wall is made accordingly. Carpet
Lastly, the landlord seeks reimbursement for the costs of replacing the carpet throughout the property. The landlord has provided four photos of the carpet and submits the stains visible in those photos were caused by this tenant. The landlord also says pets were kept at the property and, as a result, the carpets smelt of urine.
The landlord does not have photos of the state of the carpet at the beginning of this tenancy. A quote for the replacement of the carpet throughout the house was provided. The landlord confirmed she had claimed insurance, and was required to pay $2,500 as excess.
During the hearing, the landlord confirmed the carpet was approximately 10 years old. In determining any compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time.
Current depreciation guidelines provided by the IRD estimate that the life of carpets installed after 1 April 2011 in a residential rental property is approximately eight years. 1 Accordingly, the carpet at this property was at the end of its lifespan.
As the landlord was unable to provide photographs to show the condition of the carpet at the start of this tenancy, I am not satisfied the carpet was not at the end of its lifespan, given its age, nor that the stains depicted in the photographs occurred during this tenancy. The landlord confirmed the premises had been rented for the past three years, this tenant being there for only six months of that. 1 IR265 General depreciation rates, October 2023, p.36.
Given the age of the carpet, and the lack of evidence as to its condition at the start of this tenancy, the landlord has not made out her claim, and this part of the claim is also dismissed. Filing fee
Given the landlord has partially succeeded with the claim I order that the tenant reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4825738 — net $796.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$346.29	Water rates
Internal plastering repairs	$450.00	Internal plastering repairs
Net award	$796.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$796.29

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $796.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. The registrar attempted to call the tenant’s last known number, however there was no answer.
The tenancy ended on 8 February 2024. Following re-entry to the premises, the landlord applied to the tribunal for reimbursement of outgoings and costs as follows: a. Unpaid water rates; b. Cleaning; c. Rubbish removal; d. Plaster repair for a hole in the wall; and e. Replacement of carpet.
I will deal with each claim separately below. Water rates
The landlord provided records of the water rates for the entirety of the tenancy. The tenant moved in on 14 August 2023 and moved out on 8 February 2024. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the consumption rates over that period, being $346.29. An order is made accordingly. Cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement for the cost of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. While the landlord presented an invoice for the claimed amount, she was unable to provide evidence (such as photographs) of the state the premises were left in by the tenant. The landlord provided some photos of the carpet (only), which were relevant to a separate claim and do not give sufficient insight into how clean the property was at the end of the tenancy.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.” Without evidence of the state the premises were left in, I am not satisfied that the premises were not “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” at the end of the tenancy. This part of the claim is dismissed. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks reimbursement for the cost of a skip bin and collection. An invoice and receipt for those costs were provided, but again no photographic evidence was provided to show the rubbish and waste the landlord says was left by this tenant. Nor did the landlord have photographic evidence of the condition the property was in at the start of the tenancy. Without such evidence, the landlord has not made out her claim, and this part of the claim is also dismissed. Plaster repair
The landlord seeks reimbursement of part of the cost of plaster repairs completed in the property. The total cost of the repairs was $1000. The invoice is separated into internal repairs of $900 and external repairs of $100. The landlord stated there were two internal areas that needed repairing, and so seeks reimbursement of half the internal repairs cost, being $450.
The landlord provided a photo of a reasonably substantial hole in the plaster of the wall, in which the plaster has completely fallen out, and the stud of the wall is exposed. The landlord states she spoke to the tenant about the hole and the tenant stated it must have happened when they moved out.
During the hearing, the landlord confirmed she did not have photographs of the condition of the wall at the start of the tenancy however she indicated she did have a checklist recording the condition of the property which was completed at the start of the tenant’s tenancy. The landlord says it recorded that the walls were in good condition. Having received that checklist via email after the hearing, I am satisfied the walls were all in acceptable condition at the start of the tenancy and the photographed hole was not present when the tenant moved in. I find it is more probable than not that the hole was caused by the tenant.
An order for reimbursement of the cost of repairing the hole in the wall is made accordingly. Carpet
Lastly, the landlord seeks reimbursement for the costs of replacing the carpet throughout the property. The landlord has provided four photos of the carpet and submits the stains visible in those photos were caused by this tenant. The landlord also says pets were kept at the property and, as a result, the carpets smelt of urine.
The landlord does not have photos of the state of the carpet at the beginning of this tenancy. A quote for the replacement of the carpet throughout the house was provided. The landlord confirmed she had claimed insurance, and was required to pay $2,500 as excess.
During the hearing, the landlord confirmed the carpet was approximately 10 years old. In determining any compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time.
Current depreciation guidelines provided by the IRD estimate that the life of carpets installed after 1 April 2011 in a residential rental property is approximately eight years. 1 Accordingly, the carpet at this property was at the end of its lifespan.
As the landlord was unable to provide photographs to show the condition of the carpet at the start of this tenancy, I am not satisfied the carpet was not at the end of its lifespan, given its age, nor that the stains depicted in the photographs occurred during this tenancy. The landlord confirmed the premises had been rented for the past three years, this tenant being there for only six months of that. 1 IR265 General depreciation rates, October 2023, p.36.
Given the age of the carpet, and the lack of evidence as to its condition at the start of this tenancy, the landlord has not made out her claim, and this part of the claim is also dismissed. Filing fee
Given the landlord has partially succeeded with the claim I order that the tenant reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4825738 — Property damage at 7A Hauraki Crescent, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4825738 — Property damage at 7A Hauraki Crescent, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions