What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863465 about?

The tribunal order states: Mary Luceni Caicedo Sinisterra must pay [The landlord/s] $2,076.15

How much money was awarded in case 4863465?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,365.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863465?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10832529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863465 about?

The tribunal order states: Mary Luceni Caicedo Sinisterra must pay [The landlord/s] $2,076.15

How much money was awarded in case 4863465?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,365.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863465?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10832529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Somerset Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4863465 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863465 — net $2,076.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,365.71	Rent arrears
Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repair	$460.00	Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repair
Lawns and Garden work	$230.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,076.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,076.15

Order

Mary Luceni Caicedo Sinisterra must pay [The landlord/s] $2,076.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by the court appointed Spanish interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The landlord submitted expense claims and a large number of photographs with his online application. There was also an oral hearing. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she moved out in March/April 2024. She says that she telephoned the landlord advising of this. She also stated that WINZ were not going to keep paying her rent. She was also disappointed that the landlord did not return her calls.
The tenant did not provide the required 28-day notice in writing to the landlord as required by section 51 (2B) and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the carpet during the tenancy. Significant photographic evidence of the premises was provided in support of the various claims. The landlord says that the tenant left some stains on the carpet. He further stated that the tenant had a kitten which resulted in parts of the carpet smelling of urine.
I have carefully considered the photographic evidence taken at the commencement of the tenancy. I have also compared this to the exit photographs, and it is my view that the evidence does not support the claim for carpet cleaning. While I accept that there is evidence of some very small stains these, in my view, amount to fair wear and tear. A tenant is only required to leave the carpet in a reasonable clean and tidy condition.
The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Lawnmowing:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the lawns in a reasonable condition at the conclusion of the tenancy as of 4 May 2024. Having sighted the photographic evidence of the lawns I am satisfied that the lawns were overgrown and required attention. The amount claimed by the landlord is reasonable. I have also sighted the expense claim from Wen Ming Garden Limited dated 4 May 2024.
The claim for lawn mowing is allowed. Cleaning:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises in a clean and tidy condition. The tenant stated during the hearing that they cleaned the house prior to leaving. The landlord stated that it took two cleaners a full day to clean everything.
The landlord provided a number of photographs in support of this claim. There was evidence of a small number of areas which required further attention. The oven had not been cleaned. The landlord provided an expense claim from Good Good Good Limited dated 3 May 2024.
Having carefully assessed the cleaning evidence I cannot see how two cleaners would have needed all day to clean the premises. Overall, the house was left in a satisfactory condition but for a small number of issues which required attention. The oven being one of these.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for cleaning but reduce the amount to $200.00 based on the evidence filed with the application.
The amounts ordered are 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. Bedroom sliding door:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a bedroom sliding door. Photographic evidence clearly shows damage to the door which would have required either repair or replacement.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the door is an original and to replace would have cost significantly more than what has been claimed to repair. The landlord provided an expense claim from LXD Renovations Limited dated 13 May 2024 in support of this claim.
The tenant does not agree with this claim. She stated that the door fell off its track on to the bed narrowly missing her child.
The damage is clearly more than fair wear and tear. There is also no evidence from the tenant confirming that she brought this to the attention of the landlord at the time of the damage.
Accordingly, I allow the landlord’s claim in respect of the bedroom sliding door.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863465 — net $2,076.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,365.71	Rent arrears
Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repair	$460.00	Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repair
Lawns and Garden work	$230.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,076.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,076.15

Order

Mary Luceni Caicedo Sinisterra must pay [The landlord/s] $2,076.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by the court appointed Spanish interpreter.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The landlord submitted expense claims and a large number of photographs with his online application. There was also an oral hearing. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she moved out in March/April 2024. She says that she telephoned the landlord advising of this. She also stated that WINZ were not going to keep paying her rent. She was also disappointed that the landlord did not return her calls.
The tenant did not provide the required 28-day notice in writing to the landlord as required by section 51 (2B) and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. Carpet cleaning:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the carpet during the tenancy. Significant photographic evidence of the premises was provided in support of the various claims. The landlord says that the tenant left some stains on the carpet. He further stated that the tenant had a kitten which resulted in parts of the carpet smelling of urine.
I have carefully considered the photographic evidence taken at the commencement of the tenancy. I have also compared this to the exit photographs, and it is my view that the evidence does not support the claim for carpet cleaning. While I accept that there is evidence of some very small stains these, in my view, amount to fair wear and tear. A tenant is only required to leave the carpet in a reasonable clean and tidy condition.
The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Lawnmowing:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the lawns in a reasonable condition at the conclusion of the tenancy as of 4 May 2024. Having sighted the photographic evidence of the lawns I am satisfied that the lawns were overgrown and required attention. The amount claimed by the landlord is reasonable. I have also sighted the expense claim from Wen Ming Garden Limited dated 4 May 2024.
The claim for lawn mowing is allowed. Cleaning:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises in a clean and tidy condition. The tenant stated during the hearing that they cleaned the house prior to leaving. The landlord stated that it took two cleaners a full day to clean everything.
The landlord provided a number of photographs in support of this claim. There was evidence of a small number of areas which required further attention. The oven had not been cleaned. The landlord provided an expense claim from Good Good Good Limited dated 3 May 2024.
Having carefully assessed the cleaning evidence I cannot see how two cleaners would have needed all day to clean the premises. Overall, the house was left in a satisfactory condition but for a small number of issues which required attention. The oven being one of these.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for cleaning but reduce the amount to $200.00 based on the evidence filed with the application.
The amounts ordered are 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. Bedroom sliding door:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a bedroom sliding door. Photographic evidence clearly shows damage to the door which would have required either repair or replacement.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the door is an original and to replace would have cost significantly more than what has been claimed to repair. The landlord provided an expense claim from LXD Renovations Limited dated 13 May 2024 in support of this claim.
The tenant does not agree with this claim. She stated that the door fell off its track on to the bed narrowly missing her child.
The damage is clearly more than fair wear and tear. There is also no evidence from the tenant confirming that she brought this to the attention of the landlord at the time of the damage.
Accordingly, I allow the landlord’s claim in respect of the bedroom sliding door.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863465 — Rent arrears at 26 Somerset Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863465 — Rent arrears at 26 Somerset Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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