What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4883025 about?

The tribunal order states: Alfred Faataape must pay [The landlord/s] $2,386.39 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4883025?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Back Bedroom Paint: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,227.97 awarded to landlord; Skirtings: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Sleep Out Walls: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $128.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883025?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883025?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10627617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4883025 about?

The tribunal order states: Alfred Faataape must pay [The landlord/s] $2,386.39 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4883025?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Back Bedroom Paint: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,227.97 awarded to landlord; Skirtings: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Sleep Out Walls: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $128.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883025?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883025?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10627617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4883025 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4883025 — net $2,386.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$650.00	Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00	Lawns and Garden work
Vinyl Clean	$100.00	Vinyl Clean
Repairs: Sleep Out Walls	$750.00	Repairs: Sleep Out Walls
Repairs: Back Bedroom Paint	$250.00	Repairs: Back Bedroom Paint
Repairs: Skirtings	$150.00	Repairs: Skirtings
Repairs: Toilet Seat	$128.42	Repairs: Toilet Seat
Repairs: Oven Replacement	$2,227.97	Repairs: Oven Replacement
Net award	$2,386.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,386.39

Order

Alfred Faataape must pay [The landlord/s] $2,386.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$650.00 Lawns and Garden work$250.00 Vinyl Clean$100.00 Repairs: Sleep Out Walls$750.00 Repairs: Back Bedroom Paint$250.00 Repairs: Skirtings$150.00 Repairs: Toilet Seat$128.42 Repairs: Oven Replacement$2,227.97 Total award$4,506.39 Bond$2,120.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,386.39
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for 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 17 April 2024. The landlord had not made a claim for rent arrears, but the parties had agreed that the tenant owed $650 being a week rent at the end of the tenancy. They had agreed that would be paid from the bond.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed for lawn and garden work ($600), carpet and vinyl cleaning ($589.50), bin cleaning ($25), window cleaning ($149.50) and replacement toilet seats ($128.42).
The landlord provided some photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. She also provided invoices for the costs claimed.
The photographs establish that some lawn and garden work was required at the end of the tenancy. The tenant apportioned an invoice for wider landscaping to claim $600 from the tenant. Having regard to the ingoing and outgoing photographs and similar claims before the Tribunal, I award $250.00.
The landlord claimed carpet and vinyl cleaning throughout the dwelling. She did not provide photographs of all vinyl and carpet areas. The photographs which were provided do not establish that it is more likely than not that all carpet and vinyl areas needed to be professionally cleaned to bring them to an objectively reasonably clean standard. I have awarded $100 for vinyl cleaning, as the landlord did provide some evidence that cleaning was required.
The window cleaning claim is dismissed. The invoice is dated 3 June 2024, approximately 7 weeks after the tenancy ended and after the landscaping was completed. It is for internal and external window cleaning. Exterior cleaning is generally held to be a landlord maintenance obligation. The tenant provided an invoice from a cleaner recording that she cleaned the inside of the windows at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the window cleaning costs were incurred as a result of a breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The cleaning claim for the green bin is dismissed. Bins are inherently dirty, particularly an organic waste bin. There was no evidence that the bin was contaminated with non-organic waste to the extent that it required cleaning. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord established that the toilets were not reasonably clean and could not be returned to reasonably clean. Having regard to the photographs, it was reasonable for her to replace them. I award the amount claimed of $128.42. The landlord provided receipts to prove the amount claimed.

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 (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.
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 claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Sleep out walls ($750), back bedroom walls ($950), hallway skirting boards ($150), carpet stain ($700) and oven replacement.
The sleep out wall damage is established. The landlord provided photographs, which the tenant accepted showed the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy. It appears that the tenant (or his painter) had attempted a repair but left two patches unpainted. The landlord provided an invoice for the repair cost. The amount is proved.
The damage to the back bedroom was partially established. The ingoing inspection report records damage to the door. The photographs provided by the landlord for the back bedroom do not show damage that it is more than fair wear and tear, to the extent that $950 redecoration work was required. I award $250 for paint repairs to the back bedroom to deal with mismatched colour touch ups by the tenant.
The landlord also claimed $150 for skirting repairs in the hallway. She only provided one photograph of skirting boards which was consistent with fair wear and tear over a 4-year period (the duration of this tenancy). However, the photos provided to support the claim included some mismatched trim touch ups by the tenant. The tenant acknowledged that it has attempted the trim repairs. I award the $150 claimed.
The landlord claimed $700 for carpet damage. She said that there was a turmeric-coloured stain on the carpet and the tenant’s repair attempts have led to further damage. The tenant acknowledged that there was a stain but did not know how or when it occurred. The ingoing inspection report has a photograph of a small bright yellow stain in the living room. The tenant used a rug doctor and carpet stain remover on the stain. Those steps are not unreasonable. The landlord has not established that the tenant is liable for any carpet damage.
Further, the landlord said that the $700 claimed would have been her insurance excess for the damage. The excess recorded in the tenancy agreement is $550. More significantly, the carpet has not been (and will not be) replaced by the landlord. She has a conditional contract for the sale of the property. There is no evidence that any carpet damage resulted in a reduction of the sale price. So, even if the tenant was liable for the damage, the landlord did not establish that she has suffered a loss.
The final item claimed is a replacement oven. The landlord provided photographs to show that the bottom of the oven is corroded beyond repair. The corrosion was likely caused by aluminium foil on the bottom of the oven. The tenant used the foil to protect the oven, but it had the opposite effect. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The condition of the oven at the end of the tenancy, is not consistent with his evidence that the oven was cleaned every two to three months. Further, if regular cleaning was carried out, the issue could have been identified before the oven became
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4883025 — net $2,386.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$650.00	Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00	Lawns and Garden work
Vinyl Clean	$100.00	Vinyl Clean
Repairs: Sleep Out Walls	$750.00	Repairs: Sleep Out Walls
Repairs: Back Bedroom Paint	$250.00	Repairs: Back Bedroom Paint
Repairs: Skirtings	$150.00	Repairs: Skirtings
Repairs: Toilet Seat	$128.42	Repairs: Toilet Seat
Repairs: Oven Replacement	$2,227.97	Repairs: Oven Replacement
Net award	$2,386.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,386.39

Order

Alfred Faataape must pay [The landlord/s] $2,386.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$650.00 Lawns and Garden work$250.00 Vinyl Clean$100.00 Repairs: Sleep Out Walls$750.00 Repairs: Back Bedroom Paint$250.00 Repairs: Skirtings$150.00 Repairs: Toilet Seat$128.42 Repairs: Oven Replacement$2,227.97 Total award$4,506.39 Bond$2,120.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,386.39
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for 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 17 April 2024. The landlord had not made a claim for rent arrears, but the parties had agreed that the tenant owed $650 being a week rent at the end of the tenancy. They had agreed that would be paid from the bond.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed for lawn and garden work ($600), carpet and vinyl cleaning ($589.50), bin cleaning ($25), window cleaning ($149.50) and replacement toilet seats ($128.42).
The landlord provided some photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. She also provided invoices for the costs claimed.
The photographs establish that some lawn and garden work was required at the end of the tenancy. The tenant apportioned an invoice for wider landscaping to claim $600 from the tenant. Having regard to the ingoing and outgoing photographs and similar claims before the Tribunal, I award $250.00.
The landlord claimed carpet and vinyl cleaning throughout the dwelling. She did not provide photographs of all vinyl and carpet areas. The photographs which were provided do not establish that it is more likely than not that all carpet and vinyl areas needed to be professionally cleaned to bring them to an objectively reasonably clean standard. I have awarded $100 for vinyl cleaning, as the landlord did provide some evidence that cleaning was required.
The window cleaning claim is dismissed. The invoice is dated 3 June 2024, approximately 7 weeks after the tenancy ended and after the landscaping was completed. It is for internal and external window cleaning. Exterior cleaning is generally held to be a landlord maintenance obligation. The tenant provided an invoice from a cleaner recording that she cleaned the inside of the windows at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the window cleaning costs were incurred as a result of a breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The cleaning claim for the green bin is dismissed. Bins are inherently dirty, particularly an organic waste bin. There was no evidence that the bin was contaminated with non-organic waste to the extent that it required cleaning. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord established that the toilets were not reasonably clean and could not be returned to reasonably clean. Having regard to the photographs, it was reasonable for her to replace them. I award the amount claimed of $128.42. The landlord provided receipts to prove the amount claimed.

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 (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.
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 claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Sleep out walls ($750), back bedroom walls ($950), hallway skirting boards ($150), carpet stain ($700) and oven replacement.
The sleep out wall damage is established. The landlord provided photographs, which the tenant accepted showed the condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy. It appears that the tenant (or his painter) had attempted a repair but left two patches unpainted. The landlord provided an invoice for the repair cost. The amount is proved.
The damage to the back bedroom was partially established. The ingoing inspection report records damage to the door. The photographs provided by the landlord for the back bedroom do not show damage that it is more than fair wear and tear, to the extent that $950 redecoration work was required. I award $250 for paint repairs to the back bedroom to deal with mismatched colour touch ups by the tenant.
The landlord also claimed $150 for skirting repairs in the hallway. She only provided one photograph of skirting boards which was consistent with fair wear and tear over a 4-year period (the duration of this tenancy). However, the photos provided to support the claim included some mismatched trim touch ups by the tenant. The tenant acknowledged that it has attempted the trim repairs. I award the $150 claimed.
The landlord claimed $700 for carpet damage. She said that there was a turmeric-coloured stain on the carpet and the tenant’s repair attempts have led to further damage. The tenant acknowledged that there was a stain but did not know how or when it occurred. The ingoing inspection report has a photograph of a small bright yellow stain in the living room. The tenant used a rug doctor and carpet stain remover on the stain. Those steps are not unreasonable. The landlord has not established that the tenant is liable for any carpet damage.
Further, the landlord said that the $700 claimed would have been her insurance excess for the damage. The excess recorded in the tenancy agreement is $550. More significantly, the carpet has not been (and will not be) replaced by the landlord. She has a conditional contract for the sale of the property. There is no evidence that any carpet damage resulted in a reduction of the sale price. So, even if the tenant was liable for the damage, the landlord did not establish that she has suffered a loss.
The final item claimed is a replacement oven. The landlord provided photographs to show that the bottom of the oven is corroded beyond repair. The corrosion was likely caused by aluminium foil on the bottom of the oven. The tenant used the foil to protect the oven, but it had the opposite effect. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The condition of the oven at the end of the tenancy, is not consistent with his evidence that the oven was cleaned every two to three months. Further, if regular cleaning was carried out, the issue could have been identified before the oven became
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883025 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883025 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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