What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4825857?

The tribunal order states: Anh Ngoc Tran must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 4825857?

____________________________________…: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Inspection Fees And Remov…: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Labour To Collect Rubbish: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Window In Garage And…: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Replacing Side Door Lock: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $954.50 awarded to landlord; Washing And Paint Rear Exterior Wall: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $825.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4825857?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4825857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10764200-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4825857?

The tribunal order states: Anh Ngoc Tran must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 4825857?

____________________________________…: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Inspection Fees And Remov…: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Labour To Collect Rubbish: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Window In Garage And…: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Replacing Side Door Lock: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $954.50 awarded to landlord; Washing And Paint Rear Exterior Wall: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $825.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4825857?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4825857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10764200-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Pistachio Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4825857 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4825857 — net $8,518.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 April 2024	$2,550.00	Rent arrears to 4 April 2024
Water rates to 3 April 2024	$825.27	Water rates to 3 April 2024
Garage door remote replacement	$235.00	Garage door remote replacement
Electrical inspection fees and removal of DIY work	$138.00	Electrical inspection fees and removal of DIY work
Repairs to walls and ceiling and plastering/painting	$3,250.00	Repairs to walls and ceiling and plastering/painting
Replace damaged shower head and rail	$230.00	Replace damaged shower head and rail
Replace broken window in garage and removing tape	$260.00	Replace broken window in garage and removing tape
Rubbish removal	$954.50	Rubbish removal
Labour to collect rubbish	$600.00	Labour to collect rubbish
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Remove damaged curtains	$115.00	Remove damaged curtains
__________________________________________________________________________________ 48258572 Installing new curtains (dep	$575.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 48258572 Installing new curtains (dep
Lawns and garden work	$100.00	Lawns and garden work
Remove and replace damaged tiles	$300.00	Remove and replace damaged tiles
Washing and paint rear exterior wall	$1,150.00	Washing and paint rear exterior wall
Replacing side door lock	$115.00	Replacing side door lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,518.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,518.21

Order

Anh Ngoc Tran must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Dai Hai NZ Limited $8,518.21 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (5340458-011) to Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Dai Hai NZ Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Zhang and Ms Nguyen. The tenant appeared in person. The tenant did not live in the property himself as the property was used for accommodation for migrant employees of a company associated with the tenant. Ms Somla-Or, who dealt with the landlord on behalf of the tenant, also appeared at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the parties advised that the tenancy has now ended and an order for termination is therefore no longer sought or required. Onus and evidence
This is a claim by the landlord and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
The invoices provided by the landlord included a break down of claims excluding GST and a total sum inclusive of GST. Because I have considered the individual claims separately, rather than the full invoice, I have referred to the amounts of the various claims including GST.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and referred to at the hearing today but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 5 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant reviewed the landlord’s rent summary, tenancy invoices and water rates invoices during the hearing and confirmed that the amounts claimed by the landlord are owed. I therefore make orders in respect of rent and water arrears by consent.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided both the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos. The landlord explained that the people who were living in the property left behind a huge amount of rubbish. The photos confirm the landlord’s claim that the tenants left a huge amount of rubbish in the garden and threw rubbish in the hall cupboard, basement and under the house. There was rubbish left throughout the house.
The tenant accepted that rubbish was left behind but disputed the amount claimed by the landlord. The landlord claimed $954.50 for rubbish removal and $690 for the labour to collect the rubbish.
I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for rubbish removal and labour and consider both amounts to be reasonable given the huge amount of rubbish left behind and the fact that the rubbish was spread around the property.
The amounts ordered for rubbish removal are proved.
The landlord has also claimed $1,150.00 for house cleaning. The tenant accepts that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy but disputes the amount claimed.
I have carefully reviewed the photos. In my view the main areas that required further cleaning were mainly the kitchen and bathroom. Tenants only have to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, they do not need to leave a property in spotless condition and ready for a new tenant to move into. I consider that the amount of $500.00 is reasonable to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord also claimed the sum of $575.00 for tidying up weeds. The tenant accepted that some weeding needed to be done but disputed the amount. I have reviewed the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos. In my view the area to be weeded is fairly small. I consider compensation in the amount of $100.00 to be reasonable.
The tenant did not return the garage door remote. The tenant accepted this and accepted the landlord’s claim for a replacement remote in the amount of $235.00 as proved by invoice. Compensation for the garage door remote is therefore ordered by consent.

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 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.
The following damage was accepted by the tenant together with the amount of compensation claimed by the landlord: a. Shower head and rail replacement $230.00 b. Damaged vanity mixer $172.50 c. Missing disconnected laundry pipe $230.00 d. Broken window and taped window $260.00
The landlord also claimed the following damage: Damaged pillar and tiles
The landlord claimed that one of the people living at the property must have backed their car into the corner of a deck, dislodging tiles and damaging a pillar. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $2,875.00 for removing and replacing the damaged tiles (for which the landlord claims half, taking into account depreciation, being $1,437.50) and $1,000 for plastering and painting three pillars. The landlord said that all three pillars needed to be painted so that they matched.
The tenant accepted that the people living in the property must have damaged the corner of the deck but disputed the amount claimed as he said that there were only two tiles dislodged. The tenant disputed that the pillar had been damaged at the same time and said that this was a 1990’s plaster house that was showing signs of water damage.
I have reviewed the photos and invoices. I consider that the amount of $300.00 is appropriate for the damaged tiles given the damage and age of the deck.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the pillar was caused by the tenants. In my view it is just as likely to be wear and tear given the age of the property. Even if I had found this claim proved I do not consider that the landlord should have claimed for painting all three pillars. The claim for repairing and painting the pillars is dismissed. Washing and painting exterior wall
The landlord explained that the tenants would simply throw their rubbish and cooking waste out the second storey window which led to there being a dark stain running down the entire length of the outside of the house below the window. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,150.00 for washing and then painting the wall. The landlord said that they at tried to wash the wall but when that was not effective it had to be painted.
The tenant accepted that the people living in the property had caused the stain but said that it was unreasonable for the landlord to both wash and paint the wall, and that they should not have to pay for the entire wall to be painted.
I consider that it was reasonable (and responsible) for the landlord to attempt to wash this area, which shows a very dark stain, and to then paint the entire area when it could not be washed off. I consider the amount claimed by the landlord to be reasonable and so order the full amount accordingly. Door locks
The landlord told me that the side door handle had been damaged and had to be replaced, and that the landlord also replaced the front door lock as they were worried that a lot of different people had stayed at the property and extra keys had been cut. The landlord claimed the amount of $230.00 for replacing both locks.
Having reviewed the photos I consider the side door lock to be proved, but do not consider that the landlord is justified in changing the front door lock and seeking compensation from the tenant. It is possible that extra keys could be made in any tenancy and it is not routine for landlord’s to change locks to guard against this. There was also no evidence that extra keys were cut in this case.
The invoice does not itemise the amount for each lock and so I order half of the total amount claimed. Replace damaged gib in garage
The landlord claimed that gib in the garage (behind the washing machine and in a small corner by the door) had been damaged during the tenancy. The landlord sought compensation in the amount of $920.00 for repairs.
I have carefully reviewed the photos and am not satisfied that the area has been damaged during the tenancy. The claim in respect of the gib in the garage is dismissed. Plastering and painting walls and ceiling
The landlord claimed further that the tenants cut three holes in the ceiling in the kitchen, and two holes in the walls in the hallway, and that in the bedrooms the tenants had attached rails to the walls without permission causing there to be holes and damage, all of which required repairs, plastering and painting.
The landlord has produced and invoice for the repairs, plastering and painting but has had an insurance claim accepted for the repairs. The insurer has imposed 5 excess amounts for each room in the amount of $650 each, being $3,250.
The tenant said that the tenant cut two of the holes in the ceiling because there were leaks. He accepted one of the holes cut in the hallway. He said that there should be no problems installing the railings on the walls because people need somewhere to hang their clothes. The tenant also said that he should have been given an opportunity to repair the damage.
I have carefully reviewed the evidence and consider that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Tenants are not entitled to install railings without seeking permission. There is no evidence before me showing that the landlord gave permission to the tenant to cut into the ceiling (and the landlord denied this). The landlord advised the tenant of the damage at least twice during the tenancy (as evidenced by emails) and the tenant took no steps to repair it. The landlord is under no obligation to invite the tenant to return and fix damage once the tenancy is over.
The landlord has responsibly claimed against their insurance and so the total amount of compensation is the excess amounts and not the total cost of the repairs.
This claim is proved and I order compensation accordingly. Filing fee
Because Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Dai Hai NZ Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4825857 — net $8,518.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 April 2024	$2,550.00	Rent arrears to 4 April 2024
Water rates to 3 April 2024	$825.27	Water rates to 3 April 2024
Garage door remote replacement	$235.00	Garage door remote replacement
Electrical inspection fees and removal of DIY work	$138.00	Electrical inspection fees and removal of DIY work
Repairs to walls and ceiling and plastering/painting	$3,250.00	Repairs to walls and ceiling and plastering/painting
Replace damaged shower head and rail	$230.00	Replace damaged shower head and rail
Replace broken window in garage and removing tape	$260.00	Replace broken window in garage and removing tape
Rubbish removal	$954.50	Rubbish removal
Labour to collect rubbish	$600.00	Labour to collect rubbish
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Remove damaged curtains	$115.00	Remove damaged curtains
__________________________________________________________________________________ 48258572 Installing new curtains (dep	$575.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 48258572 Installing new curtains (dep
Lawns and garden work	$100.00	Lawns and garden work
Remove and replace damaged tiles	$300.00	Remove and replace damaged tiles
Washing and paint rear exterior wall	$1,150.00	Washing and paint rear exterior wall
Replacing side door lock	$115.00	Replacing side door lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,518.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,518.21

Order

Anh Ngoc Tran must pay Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Dai Hai NZ Limited $8,518.21 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (5340458-011) to Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Dai Hai NZ Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Zhang and Ms Nguyen. The tenant appeared in person. The tenant did not live in the property himself as the property was used for accommodation for migrant employees of a company associated with the tenant. Ms Somla-Or, who dealt with the landlord on behalf of the tenant, also appeared at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the parties advised that the tenancy has now ended and an order for termination is therefore no longer sought or required. Onus and evidence
This is a claim by the landlord and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
The invoices provided by the landlord included a break down of claims excluding GST and a total sum inclusive of GST. Because I have considered the individual claims separately, rather than the full invoice, I have referred to the amounts of the various claims including GST.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and referred to at the hearing today but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 5 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant reviewed the landlord’s rent summary, tenancy invoices and water rates invoices during the hearing and confirmed that the amounts claimed by the landlord are owed. I therefore make orders in respect of rent and water arrears by consent.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided both the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos. The landlord explained that the people who were living in the property left behind a huge amount of rubbish. The photos confirm the landlord’s claim that the tenants left a huge amount of rubbish in the garden and threw rubbish in the hall cupboard, basement and under the house. There was rubbish left throughout the house.
The tenant accepted that rubbish was left behind but disputed the amount claimed by the landlord. The landlord claimed $954.50 for rubbish removal and $690 for the labour to collect the rubbish.
I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for rubbish removal and labour and consider both amounts to be reasonable given the huge amount of rubbish left behind and the fact that the rubbish was spread around the property.
The amounts ordered for rubbish removal are proved.
The landlord has also claimed $1,150.00 for house cleaning. The tenant accepts that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy but disputes the amount claimed.
I have carefully reviewed the photos. In my view the main areas that required further cleaning were mainly the kitchen and bathroom. Tenants only have to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, they do not need to leave a property in spotless condition and ready for a new tenant to move into. I consider that the amount of $500.00 is reasonable to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord also claimed the sum of $575.00 for tidying up weeds. The tenant accepted that some weeding needed to be done but disputed the amount. I have reviewed the ingoing and outgoing inspection photos. In my view the area to be weeded is fairly small. I consider compensation in the amount of $100.00 to be reasonable.
The tenant did not return the garage door remote. The tenant accepted this and accepted the landlord’s claim for a replacement remote in the amount of $235.00 as proved by invoice. Compensation for the garage door remote is therefore ordered by consent.

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 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.
The following damage was accepted by the tenant together with the amount of compensation claimed by the landlord: a. Shower head and rail replacement $230.00 b. Damaged vanity mixer $172.50 c. Missing disconnected laundry pipe $230.00 d. Broken window and taped window $260.00
The landlord also claimed the following damage: Damaged pillar and tiles
The landlord claimed that one of the people living at the property must have backed their car into the corner of a deck, dislodging tiles and damaging a pillar. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $2,875.00 for removing and replacing the damaged tiles (for which the landlord claims half, taking into account depreciation, being $1,437.50) and $1,000 for plastering and painting three pillars. The landlord said that all three pillars needed to be painted so that they matched.
The tenant accepted that the people living in the property must have damaged the corner of the deck but disputed the amount claimed as he said that there were only two tiles dislodged. The tenant disputed that the pillar had been damaged at the same time and said that this was a 1990’s plaster house that was showing signs of water damage.
I have reviewed the photos and invoices. I consider that the amount of $300.00 is appropriate for the damaged tiles given the damage and age of the deck.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the pillar was caused by the tenants. In my view it is just as likely to be wear and tear given the age of the property. Even if I had found this claim proved I do not consider that the landlord should have claimed for painting all three pillars. The claim for repairing and painting the pillars is dismissed. Washing and painting exterior wall
The landlord explained that the tenants would simply throw their rubbish and cooking waste out the second storey window which led to there being a dark stain running down the entire length of the outside of the house below the window. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,150.00 for washing and then painting the wall. The landlord said that they at tried to wash the wall but when that was not effective it had to be painted.
The tenant accepted that the people living in the property had caused the stain but said that it was unreasonable for the landlord to both wash and paint the wall, and that they should not have to pay for the entire wall to be painted.
I consider that it was reasonable (and responsible) for the landlord to attempt to wash this area, which shows a very dark stain, and to then paint the entire area when it could not be washed off. I consider the amount claimed by the landlord to be reasonable and so order the full amount accordingly. Door locks
The landlord told me that the side door handle had been damaged and had to be replaced, and that the landlord also replaced the front door lock as they were worried that a lot of different people had stayed at the property and extra keys had been cut. The landlord claimed the amount of $230.00 for replacing both locks.
Having reviewed the photos I consider the side door lock to be proved, but do not consider that the landlord is justified in changing the front door lock and seeking compensation from the tenant. It is possible that extra keys could be made in any tenancy and it is not routine for landlord’s to change locks to guard against this. There was also no evidence that extra keys were cut in this case.
The invoice does not itemise the amount for each lock and so I order half of the total amount claimed. Replace damaged gib in garage
The landlord claimed that gib in the garage (behind the washing machine and in a small corner by the door) had been damaged during the tenancy. The landlord sought compensation in the amount of $920.00 for repairs.
I have carefully reviewed the photos and am not satisfied that the area has been damaged during the tenancy. The claim in respect of the gib in the garage is dismissed. Plastering and painting walls and ceiling
The landlord claimed further that the tenants cut three holes in the ceiling in the kitchen, and two holes in the walls in the hallway, and that in the bedrooms the tenants had attached rails to the walls without permission causing there to be holes and damage, all of which required repairs, plastering and painting.
The landlord has produced and invoice for the repairs, plastering and painting but has had an insurance claim accepted for the repairs. The insurer has imposed 5 excess amounts for each room in the amount of $650 each, being $3,250.
The tenant said that the tenant cut two of the holes in the ceiling because there were leaks. He accepted one of the holes cut in the hallway. He said that there should be no problems installing the railings on the walls because people need somewhere to hang their clothes. The tenant also said that he should have been given an opportunity to repair the damage.
I have carefully reviewed the evidence and consider that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Tenants are not entitled to install railings without seeking permission. There is no evidence before me showing that the landlord gave permission to the tenant to cut into the ceiling (and the landlord denied this). The landlord advised the tenant of the damage at least twice during the tenancy (as evidenced by emails) and the tenant took no steps to repair it. The landlord is under no obligation to invite the tenant to return and fix damage once the tenancy is over.
The landlord has responsibly claimed against their insurance and so the total amount of compensation is the excess amounts and not the total cost of the repairs.
This claim is proved and I order compensation accordingly. Filing fee
Because Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Dai Hai NZ Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4825857 — Property damage at 2 Pistachio Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4825857 — Property damage at 2 Pistachio Place, Goodwood Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions