What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4892893 about?

The tribunal order states: Ibeneze Shontain Tangimetua must pay [The landlord/s] $1,934.01

How much money was awarded in case 4892893?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Power: $113.24 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,542.86 awarded to landlord; Hall In Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Bedroom: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $102.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $333.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10746844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4892893 about?

The tribunal order states: Ibeneze Shontain Tangimetua must pay [The landlord/s] $1,934.01

How much money was awarded in case 4892893?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Power: $113.24 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,542.86 awarded to landlord; Hall In Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Bedroom: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $730.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $102.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $333.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10746844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892893 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892893 — net $1,934.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 March 2024	$1,542.86	Rent arrears to 22 March 2024
Power	$113.24	Power
Water rates	$102.47	Water rates
Rubbish removal: Skip bin and removal	$730.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin and removal
Pest control: cockroaches	$172.50	Pest control: cockroaches
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$500.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Hall in wall	$250.00	Repairs: Hall in wall
Window repairs: Ranchslider	$333.50	Window repairs: Ranchslider
Lock/key replacement: Front and back door locks	$529.00	Lock/key replacement: Front and back door locks
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: curtain bedroom	$40.00	Replace furnishings: curtain bedroom
Net award	$1,934.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,934.01

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 22 March 2024 after the landlord took possession of the property.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was only liable for water if the water was more than $100 per month. The only time the tenant’s water was more than $100 per month was in March where the monthly consumption was $202.47. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the $102.47 for that month.

The landlord had the power account in the landlord’s name as per the agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The landed produced the meridian account showing the balance owed.

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 establish 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 produced photographs of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, at an inspection in October and at the end of the tenancy and on the 4 April 2024.

I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord had to hire a skip bin and pay a contractor to remove the rubbish from the property. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed by the landlord for cleaning and rubbish removal are reasonable and therefore I award the amounts claimed.

The landlord also claimed $172.50 for pest control. The photographs taken on the 22 March show that the tenant has left food out on the bench in the kitchen which has soiled. There is a cockroach infestation. I am satisfied that the cockroach infestation was caused by the tenant and therefore the tenant is liable for the cost of pest control.

The tenant was responsible for the lawns and gardens. In the vacate photographs the lawns and gardens look like they have not been mowed or weeded for a considerable period of time. I am satisfied that the landlord had to pay someone to weed the garden and mow the lawns to get it back to a reasonable condition and I award the landlord the amount claimed.

The landlord claims that the tenants removed curtains in bedroom 3. In the ingoing inspection report the curtains are present, but they are removed in the October report and in the March report. The landlord claimed $180.00 for these curtains. The landlord told me that the curtains were only 1 year old, but in the pre tenancy report they look like they are older and are not hanging properly. Taking into account the likely age and calibre of the curtains I award the landlord $40.00 for the missing curtains.

The tenant did not hand back the keys to the front or back doors and the landlord had to have new locks installed.

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 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: Hole in wall in the lounge in same place that it was previously repaired, and a broken ranch slider. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

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. Filing fee and name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and allow name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892893 — net $1,934.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 March 2024	$1,542.86	Rent arrears to 22 March 2024
Power	$113.24	Power
Water rates	$102.47	Water rates
Rubbish removal: Skip bin and removal	$730.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin and removal
Pest control: cockroaches	$172.50	Pest control: cockroaches
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$500.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Hall in wall	$250.00	Repairs: Hall in wall
Window repairs: Ranchslider	$333.50	Window repairs: Ranchslider
Lock/key replacement: Front and back door locks	$529.00	Lock/key replacement: Front and back door locks
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: curtain bedroom	$40.00	Replace furnishings: curtain bedroom
Net award	$1,934.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,934.01

Order

Ibeneze Shontain Tangimetua must pay [The landlord/s] $1,934.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 22 March 2024 after the landlord took possession of the property.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was only liable for water if the water was more than $100 per month. The only time the tenant’s water was more than $100 per month was in March where the monthly consumption was $202.47. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the $102.47 for that month.
The landlord had the power account in the landlord’s name as per the agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The landed produced the meridian account showing the balance owed.

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 establish 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 produced photographs of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, at an inspection in October and at the end of the tenancy and on the 4 April 2024.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord had to hire a skip bin and pay a contractor to remove the rubbish from the property. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed by the landlord for cleaning and rubbish removal are reasonable and therefore I award the amounts claimed.
The landlord also claimed $172.50 for pest control. The photographs taken on the 22 March show that the tenant has left food out on the bench in the kitchen which has soiled. There is a cockroach infestation. I am satisfied that the cockroach infestation was caused by the tenant and therefore the tenant is liable for the cost of pest control.
The tenant was responsible for the lawns and gardens. In the vacate photographs the lawns and gardens look like they have not been mowed or weeded for a considerable period of time. I am satisfied that the landlord had to pay someone to weed the garden and mow the lawns to get it back to a reasonable condition and I award the landlord the amount claimed.
The landlord claims that the tenants removed curtains in bedroom 3. In the ingoing inspection report the curtains are present, but they are removed in the October report and in the March report. The landlord claimed $180.00 for these curtains. The landlord told me that the curtains were only 1 year old, but in the pre tenancy report they look like they are older and are not hanging properly. Taking into account the likely age and calibre of the curtains I award the landlord $40.00 for the missing curtains.
The tenant did not hand back the keys to the front or back doors and the landlord had to have new locks installed.
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 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: Hole in wall in the lounge in same place that it was previously repaired, and a broken ranch slider. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and allow name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892893 — Rent arrears at 34 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892893 — Rent arrears at 34 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions