What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4827677 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4827677?

Rubbish Removal: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; hole in wall and crack in wall, brok…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $14.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827677?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10752106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4827677 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4827677?

Rubbish Removal: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; hole in wall and crack in wall, brok…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $14.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827677?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10752106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

55 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4827677 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4827677 — net $285.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$14.62	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning: and cleaning/ rubbish removal	$420.00	Carpet Cleaning: and cleaning/ rubbish removal
Repairs: hole in wall and crack in wall, broken light	$250.00	Repairs: hole in wall and crack in wall, broken light
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$285.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$285.06

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

This matter was heard by me on the 20 June 2024. After hearing the matter further evidence was provided regarding the bond. As a result of that further evidence, I asked that the matter be set down for a further hearing on the 8 August 2024.
I advise that before completing my order today I have listened to the complete recording of the hearing on the 20 June 2024 to refresh my memory of the evidence given at that hearing. Background.
This was a long-term tenancy. The tenancy began on the 10 December 2018 and ended just over 5 years later on the 22 January 2024 when the tenants’ moved towns.
During the tenancy the owner managed the tenancy and the parties appeared to have a good relationship.
At the end of the tenancy the owner appointed a property management company to do the final inspection with him, with a view to that property management company managing his next tenants.
The parties all agreed that the vacate inspection would take place on the 22 January 2024. On that day the tenants were behind in their moving, they admit that they were feeling tired as they were moving some distance away and had done at least one other trip that week and their moving and cleaning of the property was taking longer than they had planned.
The landlord, tenants and the landlord’s new property management company were at the vacate inspection as was the landlord’s builder who was giving the landlord some advice on a renovation project and bringing the home up to Healthy Homes Standards which would be required for any new tenants. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord claims in an application filed on the 6 March 2023. a) Water rates $14.62 b) Holes and damage to the walls $1368.50 c) Carpet cleaning $230.00 d) Cleaning and rubbish removal $207.00 e) Broken light replacement $85.10. The tenant’s dispute
The tenant does not dispute that they owed water rates from 17 January to 22 January or that they were unable to clean the carpets and finish the cleaning before they left the property, however the tenants say that the landlord agreed to deduct the sum of $420.00 from the bond to cover all the items that the tenant was liable for. The tenants say the agreement was the landlord would get $420.00 from the bond and the tenants would receive the balance.
The landlord disputes this he says that the $420 was an agreed amount to cover the cleaning and the carpet cleaning but not the damage to the light fittings or the wall.
There was considerable evidence from both parties about what discussions were held about what the $420.00 refund from the bond covered.
There are two questions that need to be answered: a) What amount is the tenant liable for at the end of the tenancy? b) Did the landlord agree to accept $420.00 in full settlement to cover the tenant costs?

What amounts is the tenant liable for 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 accepted that they had not finished all the cleaning and that they agreed that the landlord could take the cleaning costs from the bond.
The tenants also say that they had not cleaned the carpet. The tenancy was for five years, there were some stains on the carpet, and I consider it reasonable in a tenancy of this length, that the tenants would have the carpets cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
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.
I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, crack in the wall (bedroom) and holes in the wall from the TV bracket in the lounge and a broken light fitting. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I confirm that I consider the hole in the wall caused by the doorstop not working, the corner where the paint had come off and the discolouration in the bedroom to be fair wear and tear which the tenant is not liable for. Did the landlord agree to accept $420.00 in full settlement to cover the tenant costs?
Having listened to the hearing and reviewed all the documents filed by the parties I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord agreed to accept $420.00 in full settlement of his claims. I say this for the following reasons: a) The landlord and [The property manager/s] were consistent in their recollection of what the $420.00 was for. b) [The landlord/s] had not had sufficient opportunity to notice details around the house. There was a lot happening at the house that day. The tenants had not completely moved out and so a proper inspection of the property would have been difficult. The damage to the property was only notified after the tenants left. [The landlord/s] brought it to the tenant’s attention a few weeks later that he intended to claim for these costs.
In awarding the amounts owed for damage 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.
The landlord and the tenant have both been somewhat successful and requested suppression, therefore name suppression is granted, and I award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4827677 — net $285.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$14.62	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning: and cleaning/ rubbish removal	$420.00	Carpet Cleaning: and cleaning/ rubbish removal
Repairs: hole in wall and crack in wall, broken light	$250.00	Repairs: hole in wall and crack in wall, broken light
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$285.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$285.06

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

This matter was heard by me on the 20 June 2024. After hearing the matter further evidence was provided regarding the bond. As a result of that further evidence, I asked that the matter be set down for a further hearing on the 8 August 2024.
I advise that before completing my order today I have listened to the complete recording of the hearing on the 20 June 2024 to refresh my memory of the evidence given at that hearing. Background.
This was a long-term tenancy. The tenancy began on the 10 December 2018 and ended just over 5 years later on the 22 January 2024 when the tenants’ moved towns.
During the tenancy the owner managed the tenancy and the parties appeared to have a good relationship.
At the end of the tenancy the owner appointed a property management company to do the final inspection with him, with a view to that property management company managing his next tenants.
The parties all agreed that the vacate inspection would take place on the 22 January 2024. On that day the tenants were behind in their moving, they admit that they were feeling tired as they were moving some distance away and had done at least one other trip that week and their moving and cleaning of the property was taking longer than they had planned.
The landlord, tenants and the landlord’s new property management company were at the vacate inspection as was the landlord’s builder who was giving the landlord some advice on a renovation project and bringing the home up to Healthy Homes Standards which would be required for any new tenants. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord claims in an application filed on the 6 March 2023. a) Water rates $14.62 b) Holes and damage to the walls $1368.50 c) Carpet cleaning $230.00 d) Cleaning and rubbish removal $207.00 e) Broken light replacement $85.10. The tenant’s dispute
The tenant does not dispute that they owed water rates from 17 January to 22 January or that they were unable to clean the carpets and finish the cleaning before they left the property, however the tenants say that the landlord agreed to deduct the sum of $420.00 from the bond to cover all the items that the tenant was liable for. The tenants say the agreement was the landlord would get $420.00 from the bond and the tenants would receive the balance.
The landlord disputes this he says that the $420 was an agreed amount to cover the cleaning and the carpet cleaning but not the damage to the light fittings or the wall.
There was considerable evidence from both parties about what discussions were held about what the $420.00 refund from the bond covered.
There are two questions that need to be answered: a) What amount is the tenant liable for at the end of the tenancy? b) Did the landlord agree to accept $420.00 in full settlement to cover the tenant costs?

What amounts is the tenant liable for 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 accepted that they had not finished all the cleaning and that they agreed that the landlord could take the cleaning costs from the bond.
The tenants also say that they had not cleaned the carpet. The tenancy was for five years, there were some stains on the carpet, and I consider it reasonable in a tenancy of this length, that the tenants would have the carpets cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
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.
I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, crack in the wall (bedroom) and holes in the wall from the TV bracket in the lounge and a broken light fitting. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I confirm that I consider the hole in the wall caused by the doorstop not working, the corner where the paint had come off and the discolouration in the bedroom to be fair wear and tear which the tenant is not liable for. Did the landlord agree to accept $420.00 in full settlement to cover the tenant costs?
Having listened to the hearing and reviewed all the documents filed by the parties I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord agreed to accept $420.00 in full settlement of his claims. I say this for the following reasons: a) The landlord and [The property manager/s] were consistent in their recollection of what the $420.00 was for. b) [The landlord/s] had not had sufficient opportunity to notice details around the house. There was a lot happening at the house that day. The tenants had not completely moved out and so a proper inspection of the property would have been difficult. The damage to the property was only notified after the tenants left. [The landlord/s] brought it to the tenant’s attention a few weeks later that he intended to claim for these costs.
In awarding the amounts owed for damage 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.
The landlord and the tenant have both been somewhat successful and requested suppression, therefore name suppression is granted, and I award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827677 — Property damage at 55 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827677 — Property damage at 55 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What amounts is the tenant liable for at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What amounts is the tenant liable for at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions