What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872482?

The tribunal order states: Annitta Katarina Michelle Harris-Peihopa and Kevin Nathan must pay Wiki

How much money was awarded in case 4872482?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $658.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Cat Door: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $851.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872482?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947259-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872482?

The tribunal order states: Annitta Katarina Michelle Harris-Peihopa and Kevin Nathan must pay Wiki

How much money was awarded in case 4872482?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $658.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Cat Door: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $851.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872482?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947259-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Dallas Place, New Windsor, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872482 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872482 — net $7,159.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 March 2024	$658.58	Rent arrears to 28 March 2024
Painting	$5,000.00	Painting
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Carpet replacement	$1,500.00	Carpet replacement
Plumber	$109.25	Plumber
Lock/key replacement	$500.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Skip bin hire	$851.00	Skip bin hire
Door replacement	$575.00	Door replacement
Replace cat door	$35.00	Replace cat door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,159.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,159.27

Order

Annitta Katarina Michelle Harris-Peihopa and Kevin Nathan must pay Wiki Property Management Limited as Agent for Jing He $7,159.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6301135-002) to Wiki Property Management Limited as Agent for Jing He immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by its property manager Mr Yang. The tenants did not attend.
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 and water rates?

The tenant gave 28 days’ notice of termination on 2 February 2024, which would have ended the tenancy ended on 30 February 2024. The property manager’s evidence is that the tenants did not actually vacate until 28 March 2024.
Under s.60(1), “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.” The tenants are accordingly liable for rent until ceasing to occupy the premises.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed that water rates are outstanding. The property manager says that the tenants paid the water rates direct to Watercare so says the amount shown as outstanding on the final Watercare invoice, proves the amount owed.
The property manager also says that the fixed charges that a tenant is not responsible for were paid annually by the owner. That is not what the Watercare invoices show and if the tenants paid the Watercare invoices direct, it appears they are likely to have paid fixed charges as well.
The landlord has not provided ledger records enabling the Tribunal to reconcile the water use charges the tenants were responsible for, against what they actually paid. I do not find that claim 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.
End of tenancy photographs provided by the landlord show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The amount claimed for cleaning and skip hire are proved by the invoices provided.
The property manager says that there was a burglary during the tenancy after which the tenants had the locks changed. That is not a cost that was the tenants’ responsibility.
The tenants did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the landlord claims $1,000.00 for the cost of lock replacement. The invoice provided gives no detail as to how that amount is calculated and the sum claimed seems very high. Taking into account too that the landlord has had the benefit of the tenants paying for lock replacement after the break in, I consider a reduced compensation amount reasonable.
The tenants reported a shower leak at the premises and a plumber was sent to investigate. The plumber’s report notes that in arrival no leak was found and he was informed that the tenants had discovered and remedied a blockage which had caused the shower to overflow. That is the responsibility of the tenants and the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the plumber’s callout.

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. See section 49B(3)(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.
Exit inspection photographs show significant damage to the premises. A cat door was missing, the carpets were extensively stained and damaged, walls and floors were damaged with many holes requiring repair and repainting.
The cost of for replacing the cat door is approved by the invoice provided.
The landlord had 2 doors replaced at a cost of $500.00 each as proved by the invoice provided. That is a necessary repair to which no allowance for improvement value should be made.
Repairs were made to deck balustrade, doors and to a hole in the floor. The evidence proves that the damage to the balustrade and doors is more likely than not to have occurred during the tenancy and to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenants should compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing that damage. The evidence does not prove that to be that case with the hole in the floor and compensation less than the sum claimed is awarded accordingly.
The landlord had the whole of the interior of the premises repainted after holes were patched and plastered, existing wallpaper was removed and walls skim coated and painted. Interior painted cabinetry was also repainted. The invoice provided gives no detail about the extent or breakdown of the work done or the rates charged, simply a total sum of $19,009.50, which I accept the owners paid.
The property manager says that an insurance claim was made but a separate excess was payable for each individual item of damage, making a claim uneconomic.
In terms of s.49B(1) the evidence satisfies me that the majority of the damage to the premises requiring the repair and repainting work to be done, was likely to have been intentional.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
Entry inspection photographs show that the interior paintwork at the start of the tenancy was aged and worn. Significant existing wear of the wallpaper is shown with sheets beginning to peel off at the edges. Wallpaper was not matching. Particularly in the downstairs area, paint was peeling from block walls.
The owners, in having the whole interior of the premises freshly and consistently repainted, will have gained a very significant improvement in the condition of the premises.
I take into account too that while there was existing wear, the owners may not have chosen to pay for interior repainting of the premises at this point, had that damage not occurred. The repainting costs will have been higher because of the need to first repair damage for which the tenants are responsible.
Weighing those considerations, I find that the tenants should make a modest but meaningful contribution to the cost of the interior repaint, which will primarily benefit the owner.
Exit photographs also show a need for the carpets to be replaced due to their condition at the end of the tenancy. The owner incurred a cost of $7,985.39 for replacement of the carpet and vinyl.
Again, entry inspection photographs show that the carpets appear to be old and in many places, quite worn. The property manager and owner are unable to confirm the age of the existing carpet other than noting that it has not been replaced since the owners bought the premises in 2019.
The same principles apply to assessing the tenants’ contribution to the cost of replacing the carpets and vinyl flooring, which will have a significant improvement benefit to the owner but which is a cost the owner may not have incurred at this time if not for the damage caused by the tenants.
Because Wiki Property Management Limited as Agent for Jing He has largely succeeded with the claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872482 — net $7,159.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 March 2024	$658.58	Rent arrears to 28 March 2024
Painting	$5,000.00	Painting
Repairs	$450.00	Repairs
Carpet replacement	$1,500.00	Carpet replacement
Plumber	$109.25	Plumber
Lock/key replacement	$500.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Skip bin hire	$851.00	Skip bin hire
Door replacement	$575.00	Door replacement
Replace cat door	$35.00	Replace cat door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,159.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,159.27

Order

Annitta Katarina Michelle Harris-Peihopa and Kevin Nathan must pay Wiki Property Management Limited as Agent for Jing He $7,159.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6301135-002) to Wiki Property Management Limited as Agent for Jing He immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by its property manager Mr Yang. The tenants did not attend.
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 and water rates?

The tenant gave 28 days’ notice of termination on 2 February 2024, which would have ended the tenancy ended on 30 February 2024. The property manager’s evidence is that the tenants did not actually vacate until 28 March 2024.
Under s.60(1), “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.” The tenants are accordingly liable for rent until ceasing to occupy the premises.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has claimed that water rates are outstanding. The property manager says that the tenants paid the water rates direct to Watercare so says the amount shown as outstanding on the final Watercare invoice, proves the amount owed.
The property manager also says that the fixed charges that a tenant is not responsible for were paid annually by the owner. That is not what the Watercare invoices show and if the tenants paid the Watercare invoices direct, it appears they are likely to have paid fixed charges as well.
The landlord has not provided ledger records enabling the Tribunal to reconcile the water use charges the tenants were responsible for, against what they actually paid. I do not find that claim 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.
End of tenancy photographs provided by the landlord show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The amount claimed for cleaning and skip hire are proved by the invoices provided.
The property manager says that there was a burglary during the tenancy after which the tenants had the locks changed. That is not a cost that was the tenants’ responsibility.
The tenants did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the landlord claims $1,000.00 for the cost of lock replacement. The invoice provided gives no detail as to how that amount is calculated and the sum claimed seems very high. Taking into account too that the landlord has had the benefit of the tenants paying for lock replacement after the break in, I consider a reduced compensation amount reasonable.
The tenants reported a shower leak at the premises and a plumber was sent to investigate. The plumber’s report notes that in arrival no leak was found and he was informed that the tenants had discovered and remedied a blockage which had caused the shower to overflow. That is the responsibility of the tenants and the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the plumber’s callout.

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. See section 49B(3)(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.
Exit inspection photographs show significant damage to the premises. A cat door was missing, the carpets were extensively stained and damaged, walls and floors were damaged with many holes requiring repair and repainting.
The cost of for replacing the cat door is approved by the invoice provided.
The landlord had 2 doors replaced at a cost of $500.00 each as proved by the invoice provided. That is a necessary repair to which no allowance for improvement value should be made.
Repairs were made to deck balustrade, doors and to a hole in the floor. The evidence proves that the damage to the balustrade and doors is more likely than not to have occurred during the tenancy and to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenants should compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing that damage. The evidence does not prove that to be that case with the hole in the floor and compensation less than the sum claimed is awarded accordingly.
The landlord had the whole of the interior of the premises repainted after holes were patched and plastered, existing wallpaper was removed and walls skim coated and painted. Interior painted cabinetry was also repainted. The invoice provided gives no detail about the extent or breakdown of the work done or the rates charged, simply a total sum of $19,009.50, which I accept the owners paid.
The property manager says that an insurance claim was made but a separate excess was payable for each individual item of damage, making a claim uneconomic.
In terms of s.49B(1) the evidence satisfies me that the majority of the damage to the premises requiring the repair and repainting work to be done, was likely to have been intentional.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
Entry inspection photographs show that the interior paintwork at the start of the tenancy was aged and worn. Significant existing wear of the wallpaper is shown with sheets beginning to peel off at the edges. Wallpaper was not matching. Particularly in the downstairs area, paint was peeling from block walls.
The owners, in having the whole interior of the premises freshly and consistently repainted, will have gained a very significant improvement in the condition of the premises.
I take into account too that while there was existing wear, the owners may not have chosen to pay for interior repainting of the premises at this point, had that damage not occurred. The repainting costs will have been higher because of the need to first repair damage for which the tenants are responsible.
Weighing those considerations, I find that the tenants should make a modest but meaningful contribution to the cost of the interior repaint, which will primarily benefit the owner.
Exit photographs also show a need for the carpets to be replaced due to their condition at the end of the tenancy. The owner incurred a cost of $7,985.39 for replacement of the carpet and vinyl.
Again, entry inspection photographs show that the carpets appear to be old and in many places, quite worn. The property manager and owner are unable to confirm the age of the existing carpet other than noting that it has not been replaced since the owners bought the premises in 2019.
The same principles apply to assessing the tenants’ contribution to the cost of replacing the carpets and vinyl flooring, which will have a significant improvement benefit to the owner but which is a cost the owner may not have incurred at this time if not for the damage caused by the tenants.
Because Wiki Property Management Limited as Agent for Jing He has largely succeeded with the claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872482 — Property damage at 24 Dallas Place, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872482 — Property damage at 24 Dallas Place, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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