What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4868042 about?

The tribunal order states: Marina Te Atawhai Pickering must pay [The landlord/s] $9,009.56 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4868042?

Carpet (4 Weeks Rent: $488.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,706.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Wall Holes And Painting: $3,921.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $849.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,023.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4868042?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4868042?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10532358-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4868042 about?

The tribunal order states: Marina Te Atawhai Pickering must pay [The landlord/s] $9,009.56 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4868042?

Carpet (4 Weeks Rent: $488.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,706.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Wall Holes And Painting: $3,921.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $849.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,023.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4868042?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4868042?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10532358-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4868042 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4868042 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4868042 — net $9,009.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical repairs	$690.45	Electrical repairs
Cleaning	$1,706.90	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$420.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,023.35	Rubbish removal
Replace curtains	$849.98	Replace curtains
Repairs	$356.50	Repairs
Repairs: Wall holes and painting	$3,921.50	Repairs: Wall holes and painting
Carpet (4 weeks rent	$488.00	Carpet (4 weeks rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,009.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,009.56

Claims and awards for application 4868042 — net $9,009.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electrical repairs

Amount: $690.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrical repairs

Cleaning

Amount: $1,706.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $420.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,023.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace curtains

Amount: $849.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace curtains

Repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Marina Te Atawhai Pickering must pay [The landlord/s] $9,009.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $467.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal made an order (4678657) on 27 February 2024 terminating the tenancy on 29 February 2024. The tenant did not vacate the premises until evicted by the Bailiff.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
As the tenant was evicted the keys were changed.
There were several curtains missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has had to replace these.
The cleaning invoice has been reduced by $345.00 (plus GST) as the items at the bottom of the invoice are either due to fair wear and tear or maintenance issues.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to carpet, damage to light fittings, wall holes, graffiti painting on garage wall, damaged front door, damaged shower. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord had applied for replacement of the laundry taps. There was insufficient evidence to prove that the taps were damaged by the tenant.
In relation to the carpet, the landlord did not lodge an insurance claim. It is not known whether the damage would be covered by insurance. In the Tenancy Agreement it states that the insurance excess is $1,000.00. The weekly rent was $122.00 therefore the lesser amount is four weeks rent being $488.00.
Some of the items in the electrical invoice have not been accepted as damage by the tenant. This includes the 3 in 1 fam in the bathroom which had a lamp broken due to corrosion, the lights above the vanity that were faulty and the circuit breaker that had blown a fuse and replaced power point due to bath earth connection. These matters cannot be the fault of the tenant. I have reduced the electrical invoice by $500.00 (plus GST).
The Titanium Property Management invoice is reduced by $356.50 (plus GST) as those items are not the responsibility of the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4868042 — net $9,009.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical repairs	$690.45	Electrical repairs
Cleaning	$1,706.90	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$420.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,023.35	Rubbish removal
Replace curtains	$849.98	Replace curtains
Repairs	$356.50	Repairs
Repairs: Wall holes and painting	$3,921.50	Repairs: Wall holes and painting
Carpet (4 weeks rent	$488.00	Carpet (4 weeks rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,009.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,009.56

Claims and awards for application 4868042 — net $9,009.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Electrical repairs

Amount: $690.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrical repairs

Cleaning

Amount: $1,706.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $420.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,023.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace curtains

Amount: $849.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace curtains

Repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Marina Te Atawhai Pickering must pay [The landlord/s] $9,009.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $467.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal made an order (4678657) on 27 February 2024 terminating the tenancy on 29 February 2024. The tenant did not vacate the premises until evicted by the Bailiff.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
As the tenant was evicted the keys were changed.
There were several curtains missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has had to replace these.
The cleaning invoice has been reduced by $345.00 (plus GST) as the items at the bottom of the invoice are either due to fair wear and tear or maintenance issues.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to carpet, damage to light fittings, wall holes, graffiti painting on garage wall, damaged front door, damaged shower. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord had applied for replacement of the laundry taps. There was insufficient evidence to prove that the taps were damaged by the tenant.
In relation to the carpet, the landlord did not lodge an insurance claim. It is not known whether the damage would be covered by insurance. In the Tenancy Agreement it states that the insurance excess is $1,000.00. The weekly rent was $122.00 therefore the lesser amount is four weeks rent being $488.00.
Some of the items in the electrical invoice have not been accepted as damage by the tenant. This includes the 3 in 1 fam in the bathroom which had a lamp broken due to corrosion, the lights above the vanity that were faulty and the circuit breaker that had blown a fuse and replaced power point due to bath earth connection. These matters cannot be the fault of the tenant. I have reduced the electrical invoice by $500.00 (plus GST).
The Titanium Property Management invoice is reduced by $356.50 (plus GST) as those items are not the responsibility of the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4868042 — Property damage at 61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4868042 — Property damage at 61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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