What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874366 about?

The tribunal order states: Casey Brooke Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.09 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4874366?

Cleaning: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,626.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Unblocking Of Drain: $132.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874366?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874366?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10745421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874366 about?

The tribunal order states: Casey Brooke Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.09 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4874366?

Cleaning: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,626.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Unblocking Of Drain: $132.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874366?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874366?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10745421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26A Bayview Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4874366 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4874366 — net $4,934.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4845764 dated 06/05/2024 being rent arrears to 24/04/2024	$1,626.15	Previous order application 4845764 dated 06/05/2024 being rent arrears to 24/04/2024
Cleaning	$370.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$155.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning of the garage	$150.00	Cleaning of the garage
Damage to walls (4 x insurance excess	$2,000.00	Damage to walls (4 x insurance excess
Damage to kitchen benchtop	$250.00	Damage to kitchen benchtop
Unblocking of drain	$132.50	Unblocking of drain
Damage to bathroom wall	$250.00	Damage to bathroom wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,934.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,934.09

Order

Casey Brooke Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 06 May 2024 under application 4845764.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $20.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s applications for compensation for damage to the carpets and for reimbursement of a tradesperson’s callout fee are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant was given notice of the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord had claimed for unpaid water consumption rates. At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] advised that these rates have been paid by the tenant. The claim for unpaid water consumption rates is withdrawn.
On 06 May 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 24 April 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee. This award is incorporated for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In the application, the landlord states it is seeking $1,000 for general cleaning. An invoice has been provided showing that the sum charged for cleaning the property was: $150 for cleaning the oven and range hood filters; $450 for “move out” cleaning; and $150 for glass cleaning inside and outside; $270 for carpet steam cleaning including stain treatment; and $60 for travel. These sums are inclusive of GST.
The landlord had insurance and some of the cleaning costs (for example stain treatments on the carpet, carpet cleaning and cleaning of the walls) were part of the claims for damages which were covered by the landlord’s insurance (see below).
I consider some of the cleaning charged to have been excessive and I award $370 (including GST) in respect of general cleaning.
The photographs provided in the exit report show that rubbish was left on the property. $155 (inclusive of GST) was charged to remove rubbish. I award $155 for this claim.
A further sum of $150 (inclusive of GST) was charged to remove rubbish from and clean the garage. The landlord says it was necessary to clean the garage because the tenant had allowed the kitchen drain to be blocked which had resulted in damage to the garage floor (see below). I accept the tenant was responsible for the blocked drain which resulted in the garage requiring cleaning and that rubbish needed to be removed from the garage. I award $150 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
The landlord had insurance for the premises. Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: The landlord is seeking: a) Damage to the lounge wallsInsurance excess of $650.00 b) Damage to the kitchen wallInsurance excess of $650.00 c) Damage to the wall in Bedroom 1Insurance excess of $650.00 d) Damage to the wall in Bedroom 2Insurance excess of $650.00 e) Damage to the wall in Bedroom 3Insurance excess of $650.00 f) Damage to the carpet in Bedroom 1Insurance excess of $650.00 g) Damage to the carpet in Bedroom 2Insurance excess of $650.00 h) Damage to the carpet in Bedroom 3Insurance excess of $650.00 i) Damage to the kitchen benchtop$411.00 j) Damage to the bathroom hole in door $422.95 k) Damage to the light fitting in Bedroom 1Waived (this work was performed by the landlord) l) Blocked drain $132.50

What is the insurance excess?

Most of the claims have been covered by the landlord’s insurance. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the amount of the insurance excess. Section 13A(2) of the RTA provides that a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement specific information relating to the landlord’s insurance including whether the landlord has insurance which relates to the tenant’s liability and the amount of the excess. Once that information has been provided, section 13A(4) of the RTA provides that the landlord is obliged to advise the tenant if any of the insurance details change during the tenancy.
The Insurance Statement, as required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) of the RTA, forms an important part of the tenancy agreement. This is demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B of the RTA.
The Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties on 18 April 2022 contained a completed Insurance Statement. This statement recorded the landlord had insurance for the premises and the insurance excess as $500.00. The landlord only became the agent for the premises in January 2023. [The landlord’s representative] advises that the excess was in fact $650. He could not say if the landlord had advised the tenant of this change or not.
I find that in the absence of evidence that the tenant was advised of an increase to the excess amount, the excess amount of $500 as stated in the Tenancy Agreement is the applicable excess. Evidence of damage
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
Following the end of the tenancy, [The landlord’s representative] completed a detailed report with photographic evidence showing the state of the property. The report is well set out and the photographs are date stamped to show when they were taken. I accept [The landlord’s representative]’s report as strong evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The inspection report signed by the tenant on 18 April 2022 provides that the premises were in an acceptable condition and does not record any damage or defects to the premises. In addition, [The landlord’s representative] provided photographs at the hearing which he says the landlord says were taken shortly before the tenant moved in. The photographs are not date stamped. Given that the person who took the photographs did not attend the hearing and that the photographs are not date stamped, I do not place any weight on these photographs.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpets in the bedrooms?

In determining any compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. 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. Current depreciation guidelines provided by the IRD estimate that the life of carpets installed after 1 April 2011 in a residential rental property is approximately eight years. 1 [The landlord’s representative] was unable to say how old the carpet was. However, he did acknowledge that the carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy.
The only evidence that the carpets have been replaced was [The landlord’s representative]’s oral evidence at the hearing. He confirmed that the carpets have been replaced.
As I have not been given any indication of the age of the carpets by the landlord (see paragraph 23 above), I am not satisfied the carpet was not at the end of its lifespan. The claim for replacement of the carpets is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the walls?

The landlord has provided an invoice for this work. I accept that the damage caused to the walls was done during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. I award $2,000 (4 x the insurance excess of $500) in respect of these claims.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the kitchen benchtop?

The landlord has only provided a quotation for this work. However, [The landlord’s representative] confirms it has been done and that the cost was under excess. I accept that the damage caused to the walls was done during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. However, in the absence of an invoice, I cannot be sure that the amount charged was as stated in the quote and I award $250 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the blocked drain?

[The landlord’s representative] says that the blocked drain was caused by the kitchen being blocked by the tenant. I accept that the drain was blocked during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. An invoice has been provided for this work and I award the sum of $132.50 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the bathroom wall?

I accept that the damage to the bathroom wall occurred during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. A quote has been provided for this work on $422.95 1 Inland Revenue, IR265, General Depreciation Rates, October 2023. (including GST). The quote is under the insurance excess and the landlord is claiming the full amount. It appears the work was completed by a different tradesperson and the invoice provided includes other work and does not itemise the work in the bathroom. For this reason, I cannot be sure the fee for this work was as quoted and instead award a sum of $250.00 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the callout fee?

At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] provided messages between him and the tenant regarding a callout fee that he says the landlord was charged because the tenant did not comply with the agreed arrangements for allowing a tradesperson access to the premises. From the messages provided, the tenant’s position appears to be that she had understood different arrangements had been made. In any event, I find that if it was the tenant’s error, it was likely to have been a genuine error. I do not consider that a one-off mistake such as this should be the tenant’s responsibility and instead find it is part of the cost of owning a rental property. This claim is dismissed.
[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4874366 — net $4,934.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4845764 dated 06/05/2024 being rent arrears to 24/04/2024	$1,626.15	Previous order application 4845764 dated 06/05/2024 being rent arrears to 24/04/2024
Cleaning	$370.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$155.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning of the garage	$150.00	Cleaning of the garage
Damage to walls (4 x insurance excess	$2,000.00	Damage to walls (4 x insurance excess
Damage to kitchen benchtop	$250.00	Damage to kitchen benchtop
Unblocking of drain	$132.50	Unblocking of drain
Damage to bathroom wall	$250.00	Damage to bathroom wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,934.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,934.09

Order

Casey Brooke Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $4,934.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 06 May 2024 under application 4845764.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $20.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s applications for compensation for damage to the carpets and for reimbursement of a tradesperson’s callout fee are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant was given notice of the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord had claimed for unpaid water consumption rates. At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] advised that these rates have been paid by the tenant. The claim for unpaid water consumption rates is withdrawn.
On 06 May 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 24 April 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee. This award is incorporated for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In the application, the landlord states it is seeking $1,000 for general cleaning. An invoice has been provided showing that the sum charged for cleaning the property was: $150 for cleaning the oven and range hood filters; $450 for “move out” cleaning; and $150 for glass cleaning inside and outside; $270 for carpet steam cleaning including stain treatment; and $60 for travel. These sums are inclusive of GST.
The landlord had insurance and some of the cleaning costs (for example stain treatments on the carpet, carpet cleaning and cleaning of the walls) were part of the claims for damages which were covered by the landlord’s insurance (see below).
I consider some of the cleaning charged to have been excessive and I award $370 (including GST) in respect of general cleaning.
The photographs provided in the exit report show that rubbish was left on the property. $155 (inclusive of GST) was charged to remove rubbish. I award $155 for this claim.
A further sum of $150 (inclusive of GST) was charged to remove rubbish from and clean the garage. The landlord says it was necessary to clean the garage because the tenant had allowed the kitchen drain to be blocked which had resulted in damage to the garage floor (see below). I accept the tenant was responsible for the blocked drain which resulted in the garage requiring cleaning and that rubbish needed to be removed from the garage. I award $150 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
The landlord had insurance for the premises. Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: The landlord is seeking: a) Damage to the lounge wallsInsurance excess of $650.00 b) Damage to the kitchen wallInsurance excess of $650.00 c) Damage to the wall in Bedroom 1Insurance excess of $650.00 d) Damage to the wall in Bedroom 2Insurance excess of $650.00 e) Damage to the wall in Bedroom 3Insurance excess of $650.00 f) Damage to the carpet in Bedroom 1Insurance excess of $650.00 g) Damage to the carpet in Bedroom 2Insurance excess of $650.00 h) Damage to the carpet in Bedroom 3Insurance excess of $650.00 i) Damage to the kitchen benchtop$411.00 j) Damage to the bathroom hole in door $422.95 k) Damage to the light fitting in Bedroom 1Waived (this work was performed by the landlord) l) Blocked drain $132.50

What is the insurance excess?

Most of the claims have been covered by the landlord’s insurance. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the amount of the insurance excess. Section 13A(2) of the RTA provides that a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement specific information relating to the landlord’s insurance including whether the landlord has insurance which relates to the tenant’s liability and the amount of the excess. Once that information has been provided, section 13A(4) of the RTA provides that the landlord is obliged to advise the tenant if any of the insurance details change during the tenancy.
The Insurance Statement, as required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) of the RTA, forms an important part of the tenancy agreement. This is demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B of the RTA.
The Tenancy Agreement signed by the parties on 18 April 2022 contained a completed Insurance Statement. This statement recorded the landlord had insurance for the premises and the insurance excess as $500.00. The landlord only became the agent for the premises in January 2023. [The landlord’s representative] advises that the excess was in fact $650. He could not say if the landlord had advised the tenant of this change or not.
I find that in the absence of evidence that the tenant was advised of an increase to the excess amount, the excess amount of $500 as stated in the Tenancy Agreement is the applicable excess. Evidence of damage
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
Following the end of the tenancy, [The landlord’s representative] completed a detailed report with photographic evidence showing the state of the property. The report is well set out and the photographs are date stamped to show when they were taken. I accept [The landlord’s representative]’s report as strong evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The inspection report signed by the tenant on 18 April 2022 provides that the premises were in an acceptable condition and does not record any damage or defects to the premises. In addition, [The landlord’s representative] provided photographs at the hearing which he says the landlord says were taken shortly before the tenant moved in. The photographs are not date stamped. Given that the person who took the photographs did not attend the hearing and that the photographs are not date stamped, I do not place any weight on these photographs.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpets in the bedrooms?

In determining any compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. 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. Current depreciation guidelines provided by the IRD estimate that the life of carpets installed after 1 April 2011 in a residential rental property is approximately eight years. 1 [The landlord’s representative] was unable to say how old the carpet was. However, he did acknowledge that the carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy.
The only evidence that the carpets have been replaced was [The landlord’s representative]’s oral evidence at the hearing. He confirmed that the carpets have been replaced.
As I have not been given any indication of the age of the carpets by the landlord (see paragraph 23 above), I am not satisfied the carpet was not at the end of its lifespan. The claim for replacement of the carpets is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the walls?

The landlord has provided an invoice for this work. I accept that the damage caused to the walls was done during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. I award $2,000 (4 x the insurance excess of $500) in respect of these claims.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the kitchen benchtop?

The landlord has only provided a quotation for this work. However, [The landlord’s representative] confirms it has been done and that the cost was under excess. I accept that the damage caused to the walls was done during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. However, in the absence of an invoice, I cannot be sure that the amount charged was as stated in the quote and I award $250 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the blocked drain?

[The landlord’s representative] says that the blocked drain was caused by the kitchen being blocked by the tenant. I accept that the drain was blocked during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. An invoice has been provided for this work and I award the sum of $132.50 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the bathroom wall?

I accept that the damage to the bathroom wall occurred during the tenancy and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the tenant, was likely to have been negligent or intentional. A quote has been provided for this work on $422.95 1 Inland Revenue, IR265, General Depreciation Rates, October 2023. (including GST). The quote is under the insurance excess and the landlord is claiming the full amount. It appears the work was completed by a different tradesperson and the invoice provided includes other work and does not itemise the work in the bathroom. For this reason, I cannot be sure the fee for this work was as quoted and instead award a sum of $250.00 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the callout fee?

At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] provided messages between him and the tenant regarding a callout fee that he says the landlord was charged because the tenant did not comply with the agreed arrangements for allowing a tradesperson access to the premises. From the messages provided, the tenant’s position appears to be that she had understood different arrangements had been made. In any event, I find that if it was the tenant’s error, it was likely to have been a genuine error. I do not consider that a one-off mistake such as this should be the tenant’s responsibility and instead find it is part of the cost of owning a rental property. This claim is dismissed.
[The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4874366 — Property damage at 26A Bayview Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4874366 — Property damage at 26A Bayview Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What is the insurance excess?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpets in the bedrooms?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the walls?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the kitchen benchtop?

Is the tenant responsible for the blocked drain?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the bathroom wall?

Is the tenant responsible for the callout fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What is the insurance excess?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the carpets in the bedrooms?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the walls?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the kitchen benchtop?

Is the tenant responsible for the blocked drain?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the bathroom wall?

Is the tenant responsible for the callout fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions