What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855370 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiri Pakieto to pay [The landlord/s] $1,249.64 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4855370?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Door Stops: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Refund Of Water Bill Credit: $1,045.51 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $445.71 awarded to landlord; Walls And Paintwork: $940.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Replace vertica…: $301.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855370?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10515483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855370 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiri Pakieto to pay [The landlord/s] $1,249.64 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4855370?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Door Stops: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Refund Of Water Bill Credit: $1,045.51 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $445.71 awarded to landlord; Walls And Paintwork: $940.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Replace vertica…: $301.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855370?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10515483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Tetekura Street, Takanini 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855370 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855370 — net $1,249.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$445.71		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Pest control	$287.50		Pest control
Door stops	$100.00		Door stops
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Replace vertical curtain beads	$301.50		Replace furnishings: Replace vertical curtain beads
Repairs: walls and paintwork	$940.00		Repairs: walls and paintwork
Refund of water bill credit		$1,045.51	Refund of water bill credit
Total award	$2,295.15	$1,045.51
Net award	$1,249.64
Bond	$3,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,249.64

Order

Kiri Pakieto to pay [The landlord/s] $1,249.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,249.64 Kiri Pakieto: $1,990.36

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $445.71 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts that she owes the rent arrears.
The tenant would pay $30.00 per week in addition to the rent for water bills. At the end of the tenancy the tenant had a credit of $1045.51 for overpaying the water bills. The landlord accepts that he owes the tenant $1045.51 in water bill credit. I refund the water bill credit to the tenant by deducting the amount from debts owed to the landlord.

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 landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant denies this and says that she accepts some areas could have been done better, but on the whole, she does believe it was reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning:
The landlord has provided photos and a final exit report. The report and photos show a property that was reasonably clean and tidy. However, as the tenant has conceded that she could have done better in some areas I will reduce the cleaning bill.
I find the invoice for $575.00 for cleaning to be very high. The invoice does not state what was done, nor the time and hourly rate of the cleaners. I award the landlord $100.00 towards the cost of the cleaning.
The landlord described the house as being in a disgusting condition and refers me to photos of “grease” in the cupboard alongside the oven. However, the photos showed cardboard lining the surface, to protect the cupboard surface and not grease. The landlord’s reply was why didn’t she remove the cardboard from the cupboard.
I was also referred to photos of a hair in a drawer and a few dirty marks in other drawers.
Despite minor spots, the house was reasonable clean and tidy and had it not been for the tenant concession, I would not have awarded any money for cleaning. I award a nominal sum of $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
The tenant also advised that she did the best she could in the 2 weeks she had to move out. It appears that the landlord served the tenant with a 63 days’ notice to vacate as the landlord was intending to move into the property. However, the tenant says that the property manager sent the notice to the wrong email address, and she only knew she had to leave with two weeks’ notice. The landlord disputes this claim. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord has provided an invoice for $345.00 for a carpet deep clean. The tenant claims that she left the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The photos do not show much that I can see from the size of the print. I am awarding the landlord $100.00 towards the cost of the carpet cleaning.
I am concerned that the landlord has a higher expectation of a tenant’s obligation at the end of the tenancy. Reasonably clean means clean to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider clean. Tenants do not have to have the carpets professionally cleaned. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left reasonably clean and tidy, only an overall standard of reasonable clean and tidy. Pest control:
The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice for $287.50 for pest control. The tenant accepts that she had problems with cockroaches and is prepared to pay this invoice.
The landlord has been successful with his claim for pest control.

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.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Scratches, holes, and patches on the paint work throughout the house and garage -Door stops removed. -Curtain chains broken. Paint work damage
The landlord provides photos of the alleged damage and two separate invoices for repairs.
The first invoice from KOEL Construction was dated 15 March 2024 for $880.00 plus GST for “painting interior walls, ½ wall lounge, wall around downstairs toilets, upstairs hallway, patch lots of scratches”.
The landlord provided photos of some areas in the premise. However, despite trying to claim for damage to the lounge wall and garage, no photos were available to the Tribunal. The landlord said he “missed” the photos of the kitchen, lounge and garage area in the final inspection photos provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant again conceded that she had two small holes from furniture moving that she patched up but did not paint over. She denies painting over some walls in the hallway. The landlord says the tenant did paint the hallway walls and the result was disgusting.
The tenant commented that this was normal wear and tear having lived in the house for two and a half years. Furthermore, she claimed that the landlord was trying to get the house returned to a brand-new condition, which is unreasonable is it is no longer a new home.
The second invoice from KOEL Construction was dated 7 April 2024 for $1080.00 plus GST for “paint interior walls in lounge, upstairs hallway and bedrooms, patch lots of scratches and paint over”.
I cannot reconcile the similarities in the alleged work conducted on each of these occasions. However, given the tenants concession, I find that she had caused some damage to the paintwork during her tenancy.
I am reducing the claim because of the two similar claims of work done, the lack of proof with photos of the lounge, kitchen, garage, and for depreciation.
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.
I award the landlord $940.00 in compensation for the damage to the paintwork. Doorstop and curtain chains:
The tenant accepted that her children had removed or unscrewed some of the door stops. The landlord was seeking to replace all doorstops and claimed $322.00 for the work.
The cost of doorstops when viewing local hardware merchants ranges about $2.00 - $3.00 each, for standard cushion door stops.
I consider the $322.00 to replace doorstops to be very high. I am awarding the landlord $100.00 towards the cost of replacing doorstops and reattaching a few more. I note that the landlord has not provided photos of all of the alleged missing or unscrewed doorstops. Again, the tenant concedes that her children did unscrew a few doorstops, and a few were missing. The landlord is claiming for 9 doorstops which would be a significant number throughout the house.
The landlord claims that the tenant has broken chains connecting the vertical blinds in the house and seeks $402.50 to replace the chains. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the door stop and curtain chains. I am awarding the landlord $301.50 for the curtains chains which is the full cost but minus 25% for depreciation.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord was very frustrated that the Tribunal would not accept his claims on face value. I pointed out to the landlord that it is his application, and he bears the onus of proof. If a party is to come to the Tribunal under prepared and not able to prove his claim, then the Tribunal is obliged to find their claim unproven.
The bond is to be refunded to both parties as set out in paragraph 3 of the Order.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and details. As they have been partially successful, I am granting suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855370 — net $1,249.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$445.71		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Pest control	$287.50		Pest control
Door stops	$100.00		Door stops
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Replace vertical curtain beads	$301.50		Replace furnishings: Replace vertical curtain beads
Repairs: walls and paintwork	$940.00		Repairs: walls and paintwork
Refund of water bill credit		$1,045.51	Refund of water bill credit
Total award	$2,295.15	$1,045.51
Net award	$1,249.64
Bond	$3,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,249.64

Order

Kiri Pakieto to pay [The landlord/s] $1,249.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,249.64 Kiri Pakieto: $1,990.36

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $445.71 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts that she owes the rent arrears.
The tenant would pay $30.00 per week in addition to the rent for water bills. At the end of the tenancy the tenant had a credit of $1045.51 for overpaying the water bills. The landlord accepts that he owes the tenant $1045.51 in water bill credit. I refund the water bill credit to the tenant by deducting the amount from debts owed to the landlord.

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 landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant denies this and says that she accepts some areas could have been done better, but on the whole, she does believe it was reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning:
The landlord has provided photos and a final exit report. The report and photos show a property that was reasonably clean and tidy. However, as the tenant has conceded that she could have done better in some areas I will reduce the cleaning bill.
I find the invoice for $575.00 for cleaning to be very high. The invoice does not state what was done, nor the time and hourly rate of the cleaners. I award the landlord $100.00 towards the cost of the cleaning.
The landlord described the house as being in a disgusting condition and refers me to photos of “grease” in the cupboard alongside the oven. However, the photos showed cardboard lining the surface, to protect the cupboard surface and not grease. The landlord’s reply was why didn’t she remove the cardboard from the cupboard.
I was also referred to photos of a hair in a drawer and a few dirty marks in other drawers.
Despite minor spots, the house was reasonable clean and tidy and had it not been for the tenant concession, I would not have awarded any money for cleaning. I award a nominal sum of $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
The tenant also advised that she did the best she could in the 2 weeks she had to move out. It appears that the landlord served the tenant with a 63 days’ notice to vacate as the landlord was intending to move into the property. However, the tenant says that the property manager sent the notice to the wrong email address, and she only knew she had to leave with two weeks’ notice. The landlord disputes this claim. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord has provided an invoice for $345.00 for a carpet deep clean. The tenant claims that she left the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The photos do not show much that I can see from the size of the print. I am awarding the landlord $100.00 towards the cost of the carpet cleaning.
I am concerned that the landlord has a higher expectation of a tenant’s obligation at the end of the tenancy. Reasonably clean means clean to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider clean. Tenants do not have to have the carpets professionally cleaned. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left reasonably clean and tidy, only an overall standard of reasonable clean and tidy. Pest control:
The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice for $287.50 for pest control. The tenant accepts that she had problems with cockroaches and is prepared to pay this invoice.
The landlord has been successful with his claim for pest control.

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.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Scratches, holes, and patches on the paint work throughout the house and garage -Door stops removed. -Curtain chains broken. Paint work damage
The landlord provides photos of the alleged damage and two separate invoices for repairs.
The first invoice from KOEL Construction was dated 15 March 2024 for $880.00 plus GST for “painting interior walls, ½ wall lounge, wall around downstairs toilets, upstairs hallway, patch lots of scratches”.
The landlord provided photos of some areas in the premise. However, despite trying to claim for damage to the lounge wall and garage, no photos were available to the Tribunal. The landlord said he “missed” the photos of the kitchen, lounge and garage area in the final inspection photos provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant again conceded that she had two small holes from furniture moving that she patched up but did not paint over. She denies painting over some walls in the hallway. The landlord says the tenant did paint the hallway walls and the result was disgusting.
The tenant commented that this was normal wear and tear having lived in the house for two and a half years. Furthermore, she claimed that the landlord was trying to get the house returned to a brand-new condition, which is unreasonable is it is no longer a new home.
The second invoice from KOEL Construction was dated 7 April 2024 for $1080.00 plus GST for “paint interior walls in lounge, upstairs hallway and bedrooms, patch lots of scratches and paint over”.
I cannot reconcile the similarities in the alleged work conducted on each of these occasions. However, given the tenants concession, I find that she had caused some damage to the paintwork during her tenancy.
I am reducing the claim because of the two similar claims of work done, the lack of proof with photos of the lounge, kitchen, garage, and for depreciation.
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.
I award the landlord $940.00 in compensation for the damage to the paintwork. Doorstop and curtain chains:
The tenant accepted that her children had removed or unscrewed some of the door stops. The landlord was seeking to replace all doorstops and claimed $322.00 for the work.
The cost of doorstops when viewing local hardware merchants ranges about $2.00 - $3.00 each, for standard cushion door stops.
I consider the $322.00 to replace doorstops to be very high. I am awarding the landlord $100.00 towards the cost of replacing doorstops and reattaching a few more. I note that the landlord has not provided photos of all of the alleged missing or unscrewed doorstops. Again, the tenant concedes that her children did unscrew a few doorstops, and a few were missing. The landlord is claiming for 9 doorstops which would be a significant number throughout the house.
The landlord claims that the tenant has broken chains connecting the vertical blinds in the house and seeks $402.50 to replace the chains. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the door stop and curtain chains. I am awarding the landlord $301.50 for the curtains chains which is the full cost but minus 25% for depreciation.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord was very frustrated that the Tribunal would not accept his claims on face value. I pointed out to the landlord that it is his application, and he bears the onus of proof. If a party is to come to the Tribunal under prepared and not able to prove his claim, then the Tribunal is obliged to find their claim unproven.
The bond is to be refunded to both parties as set out in paragraph 3 of the Order.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and details. As they have been partially successful, I am granting suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855370 — Property damage at 14 Tetekura Street, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855370 — Property damage at 14 Tetekura Street, Takanini 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

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