What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4896600 about?

The tribunal order states: Malinda Murray and John Farrington must pay [The landlord/s] $1,084.77

How much money was awarded in case 4896600?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $308.33 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $977.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896600?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10859261-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4896600 about?

The tribunal order states: Malinda Murray and John Farrington must pay [The landlord/s] $1,084.77

How much money was awarded in case 4896600?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $308.33 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $977.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896600?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10859261-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

109 Arran Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896600 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

109 Arran Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896600 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896600 — net $1,084.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$977.50	Rubbish removal
Deck and yard cleaning	$460.00	Deck and yard cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$276.00	Carpet Cleaning
Deck repairs	$345.00	Deck repairs
Repairs of external board	$977.50	Repairs of external board
Replacement heater	$308.33	Replacement heater
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,084.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,084.77

Claims and awards for application 4896600 — net $1,084.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $977.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Deck and yard cleaning

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Deck and yard cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Deck repairs

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Deck repairs

Repairs of external board

Amount: $977.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs of external board

Dismissed claims

Carpet In Bedroom One — The claim for cleaning costs of the carpet in bedrooms one and two is proved and I award $276.00 (including GST) for that claim. b) Damaged wallpaper

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Malinda Murray and John Farrington must pay [The landlord/s] $1,084.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The guarantor is not liable for the sums ordered in Order 2 above.
The applications for replacement of the carpet and the curtains are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing originally took place on 02 August 2024. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant did not communicate with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
On 16 March 2021, the guarantor provided a guarantee to the landlord. At the hearing on 02 August 2024, the landlord stated that the landlord wished to enforce any Order against the guarantor. The hearing was adjourned to allow for the guarantor to be added as a party to the proceedings and to be served notice of the next hearing.
The hearing recommenced on 29 August 2024. The landlord attended the hearing. Neither the tenant nor the guarantor attended the hearing. Neither the tenant or the guarantor communicated with the Tribunal as to why they would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, cleaning costs, replacement cost for a missing heater, costs of rubbish removal, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the guarantor liable for any of the Orders?

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant dated 15 March 2022 (“the “Tenancy Agreement”). However, the Deed of Guarantee for Residential Tenancy provided by the landlord was signed by the guarantor on 16 March 2021 (the “Deed of Guarantee”). Despite being a legal document placing significant obligations on the guarantor, several of the details in the Deed of Guarantee have been left blank. For example, the date of the relevant tenancy agreement has been left “[insert date]”.
I am not satisfied that the guarantor is liable to pay the landlord the sums ordered. The Deed of Guarantee was signed over one year prior to the Tenancy Agreement and appears to relate to obligations under a previous tenancy agreement. If the Deed of Guarantee was in respect of a previous tenancy agreement between the parties, then the guarantor should have been asked to sign a further document in respect of this tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. There is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
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 has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy which show there was a significant amount of rubbish left at the property. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $977.50 (inclusive of GST) for the rubbish removal. This claim is proved and a sum of $977.50 (inclusive of GST) is ordered for this claim.
The landlord asserts that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and has provided an invoice for $460 (including GST) for deck and yard cleaning.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the premises at the end of the tenancy and two inspection reports from inspections which took place shortly after the tenancy started on 30 March 2022 (“Report One”) and 13 December 2022 (“Report Two”). The landlord has not provided a report from the commencement to the tenancy.
The photographs from Report 1 show that the yard was in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The post tenancy photographs show that it is unkept and required work. This claim is proved. I award $460.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the deck and yard.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for: a) Damaged carpet; b) Damaged wallpaper; c) Damaged curtains; d) Damaged window and internal wall; e) Damaged deck; f) Damaged external wall; and g) Cost of missing heater.
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.
Where the damage is careless, section 49B of the RTA applies. If the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
The Insurance Statement in the Tenancy Agreement provides that the premises are insured but does not state the applicable access. I note that 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 has been demonstrated by Parliament which made a failure to comply with the requirement an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B of the RTA.
The landlord has advised and provided evidence that the appliable excess is $400.00.
Where the Tribunal is called upon to consider claims for damages that have allegedly occurred during the course of a tenancy, it is essential that the Tribunal has come evidence as to the state of the premises at the tenancy’s commencement. As set out above at paragraph 9, the onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. a) Damaged carpet
The landlord is seeking replacement costs of $550 (including GST) for one bedroom and cleaning costs of $276.00 (including GST) for the other two rooms.
It is difficult to compare the carpets from the photographs in Report One from the end of tenancy photographs because in Report One the property is furnished. However, it is clear from the evidence that there was damage to the carpets that occurred during the tenancy in the form of multiple stains. I consider the marks are consistent with a child drawing or spilling paint or some other coloured material on the carpet.
If the damage was careless, the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the insurance excess. If the damage is intentional, the tenant’s liability is limited to 4 weeks’ rent. 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 virtual certainty. (See Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578.) The damage is so extensive that it appears to me that the damage was allowed to occur. I find the damage to the carpet was intentional.
However, that is not the end of the matter. Before making an order, I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. To calculate depreciation, it is necessary to take into account the age and general condition of the item when the damage occurred, and the item’s otherwise useful life span.
The carpet is not new. At the hearing, the landlord said he did not know how old the carpet was. He said that the property was purchased by the landlord in 2015 or 2016. In the absence of any evidence that new carpet was laid during this time, I find that the carpet would be between 8 – 9 years old. The Inland Revenue records the life of a carpet to be 8 years. 1
I find that the carpet had exceeded its lifespan and was due to be replaced. The claim for replacement of the carpet in bedroom one is dismissed. The claim for cleaning costs of the carpet in bedrooms one and two is proved and I award $276.00 (including GST) for that claim. b) Damaged wallpaper
The landlord is claiming for repairs to the wallpaper. The damage in the photographs is consistent with a child having drawn on the wallpaper. The photographs in Report One and Two do not show damage of this nature. I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear and that, like the carpet, the damage was intentional. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the wallpaper was at least 8-9 years old. It appears that well maintained wallpaper can last up to 15 years or beyond. 2 1 Residential Rental Property Chattels (ird.govt.nz), retrieved on 16 September 2024. 2 https://www.propertyinvestor.co.nz/the-wallpaper-vs-paint-debate, retrieved on 18 September 2024.
The landlord has provided invoices which show that the replacement wallpaper was $159.86 (including GST) and the labour to repair the wallpaper is $345 (including GST). I award $236.14 (including the GST) for this claim, being the cost of replacing the wallpaper depreciated by 8 years. c) Damaged curtains:
The landlord has provided a photograph showing extensive damage to one set of curtains. The curtains in Report One and Report Two do not appear to be damaged and I accept that this damaged occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that this was intentional. The curtains appear to be old (the landlord did not know how old they were) and it is likely that they were susceptible to tearing. From the invoice it appears that three sets of curtains were replaced. The cost to repair one set of curtains $346.53 (including GST). This is less than the insurance excess. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided a further photograph showing what appears to be mould or mildew on the back of another set of curtains. This is unlikely to have been intentional. As set out above, the cost of replacing the curtains is less than the insurance excess. This claim is dismissed. d) Damage to window and internal wall
The landlord has provided an invoice for $1,015.00 (including GST) for a damaged internal wall and a cracked window and to clean up after the work was completed. The landlord has also provided a photograph showing a cracked window and another photograph showing a hole to the wall. The photographs from Report One and Report Two do not show any damage of this nature and I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional. These claims are proved, and I award $1,015.00 (including GST) for this claim. e) Damage to deck
The landlord has provided an invoice for $345 (including GST) for to the deck. The landlord has also provided a photograph showing the damage. The photographs from Report One does not any damage of this nature and I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I also accept that it is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord advised that the tenant kept a dog at the property and the damage appears to be consistent with a dog having chewed on the wood over time. I find this damage to be intentional in the sense that the tenant could have and should have taken steps to prevent it from occurring. This claim is proved and I award the sum of $345.00 (including GST) for this claim. f) Damage to external wall:
The landlord provided a photograph showing a damaged external board. The cost to replace this was $977.50 (including GST). The photographs in Report One and Two do not show damage of this nature to the premises. I accept that this occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that this was intentional. This claim is proved and I award the sum of $977.50 (plus for this claim. g) Cost of missing heater.
The landlord claims two electrical heaters were missing from the premises and claims $723.35 (including GST) for these items and their installation. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of these items following the hearing. The tenant emailed the Tribunal after the hearing advising that there was only one heater, that it was cracked, and she removed it because it was in an unsafe area in her child’s bedroom.
The heater was attached to the wall. The tenant should not have removed the heater, and certainly not disposed of it or otherwise removed it from the premises, without first obtaining the landlord’s permission.
It appears from the provided by the landlord following the hearing, that the heaters were installed following a healthy homes inspection which took place in May 2021.
As I have not received proof that the heaters were purchased and the tenant has said that there was only one heater and the original application form only referred to one heater, I am restricting this claim to one heater.
It appears that most household electrical appliances have a life span of 8-15 years. I have assumed a lifespan of 12 years for the heater. This claim is proved in respect of one heater and I award $308.33 (including GST) for this claim.
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the application for suppression.

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896600 — net $1,084.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$977.50	Rubbish removal
Deck and yard cleaning	$460.00	Deck and yard cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$276.00	Carpet Cleaning
Deck repairs	$345.00	Deck repairs
Repairs of external board	$977.50	Repairs of external board
Replacement heater	$308.33	Replacement heater
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,084.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,084.77

Claims and awards for application 4896600 — net $1,084.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $977.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Deck and yard cleaning

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Deck and yard cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Deck repairs

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Deck repairs

Repairs of external board

Amount: $977.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs of external board

Dismissed claims

Carpet In Bedroom One — The claim for cleaning costs of the carpet in bedrooms one and two is proved and I award $276.00 (including GST) for that claim. b) Damaged wallpaper

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Malinda Murray and John Farrington must pay [The landlord/s] $1,084.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The guarantor is not liable for the sums ordered in Order 2 above.
The applications for replacement of the carpet and the curtains are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing originally took place on 02 August 2024. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant did not communicate with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
On 16 March 2021, the guarantor provided a guarantee to the landlord. At the hearing on 02 August 2024, the landlord stated that the landlord wished to enforce any Order against the guarantor. The hearing was adjourned to allow for the guarantor to be added as a party to the proceedings and to be served notice of the next hearing.
The hearing recommenced on 29 August 2024. The landlord attended the hearing. Neither the tenant nor the guarantor attended the hearing. Neither the tenant or the guarantor communicated with the Tribunal as to why they would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, cleaning costs, replacement cost for a missing heater, costs of rubbish removal, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the guarantor liable for any of the Orders?

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant dated 15 March 2022 (“the “Tenancy Agreement”). However, the Deed of Guarantee for Residential Tenancy provided by the landlord was signed by the guarantor on 16 March 2021 (the “Deed of Guarantee”). Despite being a legal document placing significant obligations on the guarantor, several of the details in the Deed of Guarantee have been left blank. For example, the date of the relevant tenancy agreement has been left “[insert date]”.
I am not satisfied that the guarantor is liable to pay the landlord the sums ordered. The Deed of Guarantee was signed over one year prior to the Tenancy Agreement and appears to relate to obligations under a previous tenancy agreement. If the Deed of Guarantee was in respect of a previous tenancy agreement between the parties, then the guarantor should have been asked to sign a further document in respect of this tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. There is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
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 has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy which show there was a significant amount of rubbish left at the property. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $977.50 (inclusive of GST) for the rubbish removal. This claim is proved and a sum of $977.50 (inclusive of GST) is ordered for this claim.
The landlord asserts that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and has provided an invoice for $460 (including GST) for deck and yard cleaning.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the premises at the end of the tenancy and two inspection reports from inspections which took place shortly after the tenancy started on 30 March 2022 (“Report One”) and 13 December 2022 (“Report Two”). The landlord has not provided a report from the commencement to the tenancy.
The photographs from Report 1 show that the yard was in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The post tenancy photographs show that it is unkept and required work. This claim is proved. I award $460.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the deck and yard.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for: a) Damaged carpet; b) Damaged wallpaper; c) Damaged curtains; d) Damaged window and internal wall; e) Damaged deck; f) Damaged external wall; and g) Cost of missing heater.
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.
Where the damage is careless, section 49B of the RTA applies. If the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
The Insurance Statement in the Tenancy Agreement provides that the premises are insured but does not state the applicable access. I note that 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 has been demonstrated by Parliament which made a failure to comply with the requirement an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B of the RTA.
The landlord has advised and provided evidence that the appliable excess is $400.00.
Where the Tribunal is called upon to consider claims for damages that have allegedly occurred during the course of a tenancy, it is essential that the Tribunal has come evidence as to the state of the premises at the tenancy’s commencement. As set out above at paragraph 9, the onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. a) Damaged carpet
The landlord is seeking replacement costs of $550 (including GST) for one bedroom and cleaning costs of $276.00 (including GST) for the other two rooms.
It is difficult to compare the carpets from the photographs in Report One from the end of tenancy photographs because in Report One the property is furnished. However, it is clear from the evidence that there was damage to the carpets that occurred during the tenancy in the form of multiple stains. I consider the marks are consistent with a child drawing or spilling paint or some other coloured material on the carpet.
If the damage was careless, the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the insurance excess. If the damage is intentional, the tenant’s liability is limited to 4 weeks’ rent. 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 virtual certainty. (See Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578.) The damage is so extensive that it appears to me that the damage was allowed to occur. I find the damage to the carpet was intentional.
However, that is not the end of the matter. Before making an order, I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. To calculate depreciation, it is necessary to take into account the age and general condition of the item when the damage occurred, and the item’s otherwise useful life span.
The carpet is not new. At the hearing, the landlord said he did not know how old the carpet was. He said that the property was purchased by the landlord in 2015 or 2016. In the absence of any evidence that new carpet was laid during this time, I find that the carpet would be between 8 – 9 years old. The Inland Revenue records the life of a carpet to be 8 years. 1
I find that the carpet had exceeded its lifespan and was due to be replaced. The claim for replacement of the carpet in bedroom one is dismissed. The claim for cleaning costs of the carpet in bedrooms one and two is proved and I award $276.00 (including GST) for that claim. b) Damaged wallpaper
The landlord is claiming for repairs to the wallpaper. The damage in the photographs is consistent with a child having drawn on the wallpaper. The photographs in Report One and Two do not show damage of this nature. I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear and that, like the carpet, the damage was intentional. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the wallpaper was at least 8-9 years old. It appears that well maintained wallpaper can last up to 15 years or beyond. 2 1 Residential Rental Property Chattels (ird.govt.nz), retrieved on 16 September 2024. 2 https://www.propertyinvestor.co.nz/the-wallpaper-vs-paint-debate, retrieved on 18 September 2024.
The landlord has provided invoices which show that the replacement wallpaper was $159.86 (including GST) and the labour to repair the wallpaper is $345 (including GST). I award $236.14 (including the GST) for this claim, being the cost of replacing the wallpaper depreciated by 8 years. c) Damaged curtains:
The landlord has provided a photograph showing extensive damage to one set of curtains. The curtains in Report One and Report Two do not appear to be damaged and I accept that this damaged occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that this was intentional. The curtains appear to be old (the landlord did not know how old they were) and it is likely that they were susceptible to tearing. From the invoice it appears that three sets of curtains were replaced. The cost to repair one set of curtains $346.53 (including GST). This is less than the insurance excess. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided a further photograph showing what appears to be mould or mildew on the back of another set of curtains. This is unlikely to have been intentional. As set out above, the cost of replacing the curtains is less than the insurance excess. This claim is dismissed. d) Damage to window and internal wall
The landlord has provided an invoice for $1,015.00 (including GST) for a damaged internal wall and a cracked window and to clean up after the work was completed. The landlord has also provided a photograph showing a cracked window and another photograph showing a hole to the wall. The photographs from Report One and Report Two do not show any damage of this nature and I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional. These claims are proved, and I award $1,015.00 (including GST) for this claim. e) Damage to deck
The landlord has provided an invoice for $345 (including GST) for to the deck. The landlord has also provided a photograph showing the damage. The photographs from Report One does not any damage of this nature and I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I also accept that it is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord advised that the tenant kept a dog at the property and the damage appears to be consistent with a dog having chewed on the wood over time. I find this damage to be intentional in the sense that the tenant could have and should have taken steps to prevent it from occurring. This claim is proved and I award the sum of $345.00 (including GST) for this claim. f) Damage to external wall:
The landlord provided a photograph showing a damaged external board. The cost to replace this was $977.50 (including GST). The photographs in Report One and Two do not show damage of this nature to the premises. I accept that this occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that this was intentional. This claim is proved and I award the sum of $977.50 (plus for this claim. g) Cost of missing heater.
The landlord claims two electrical heaters were missing from the premises and claims $723.35 (including GST) for these items and their installation. The landlord provided an invoice for replacement of these items following the hearing. The tenant emailed the Tribunal after the hearing advising that there was only one heater, that it was cracked, and she removed it because it was in an unsafe area in her child’s bedroom.
The heater was attached to the wall. The tenant should not have removed the heater, and certainly not disposed of it or otherwise removed it from the premises, without first obtaining the landlord’s permission.
It appears from the provided by the landlord following the hearing, that the heaters were installed following a healthy homes inspection which took place in May 2021.
As I have not received proof that the heaters were purchased and the tenant has said that there was only one heater and the original application form only referred to one heater, I am restricting this claim to one heater.
It appears that most household electrical appliances have a life span of 8-15 years. I have assumed a lifespan of 12 years for the heater. This claim is proved in respect of one heater and I award $308.33 (including GST) for this claim.
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896600 — Property damage at 109 Arran Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896600 — Property damage at 109 Arran Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the guarantor liable for any of the Orders?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

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

Is the guarantor liable for any of the Orders?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions