What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4901535?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4901535?

Cleaning: $176.47 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,321.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $534.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901535?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10644914-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4901535?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4901535?

Cleaning: $176.47 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,321.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $534.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901535?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10644914-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Creamer Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4901535 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

31 Creamer Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4901535 — Rent arrears | 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 4901535 — net $1,779.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024	$3,321.43	Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024
Water rates	$534.14	Water rates
Painting	$345.00	Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$176.47	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Door repair	$172.50	Door repair
Net award	$1,779.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,779.54

Claims and awards for application 4901535 — net $1,779.54 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024

Amount: $3,321.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024

Water rates

Amount: $534.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Painting

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $176.47
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.
Suncica Majkic and Mike Majkic must pay Home 365 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Lily Zhi Jun $1,779.54 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5875989-003) to Home 365 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Lily Zhi Jun immediately.

Reasons

Ms Yin and Mr Qi attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Prior to the hearing, the tenant had applied for an adjournment. This request was denied. However, the tenant was advised that they could attend by telephone, appoint a representative to attend on their behalf and/or provide their response to the claims in writing. The tenant has provided a written statement to the Tribunal which has been taken into account. I have also considered the tenant’s response to the claims set out in an email from the tenant to the landlord of 18 June 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. At the hearing, the landlord advised of a further claim for rubbish removal. This claim had not been included in the landlord’s application. Therefore, the Tribunal had not given the tenant notice of this claim. For this reason, I declined to hear it.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount of rent arrears owing. The rent ledger shows that the rent was increased from $750 per week to $850 per week in early November 2023. However, the tenant did not increase their payments until 25 November 2023. The rent ledger shows that the tenant ceased paying rent entirely from the period from 27 April 2024 to the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant says that they accept they may owe the landlord “some amount for the rent”. The tenant says the increase to $850 increased the rent to more than market rent. Section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that: On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
The tenant has not made an application to the Tribunal for this or any claim against the landlord. If the tenant wishes to do so, they may by filing an application along with the appropriate filing fee. In the meantime, the landlord is entitled to the expeditious resolution of its claims. 1 The landlord’s claims are for 1 Section 85(1) of the RTA provides: Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. vacated damages and there is no prejudice to any claims the tenant may have by the issuing of these Orders in respect of the landlord’s claims.
The rent ledger proves the amount owing and the claim for rent arrears is granted.

How much is owed for outgoings?

The landlord is seeking water consumption rates of $534.14 for invoices from December 2023 to April 2024. The invoices supporting this claim have been provided. The tenant has not addressed the water rates in their statement to the Tribunal. However, in email correspondence between the parties on 18 June the tenant disputes the amount for water rates saying it was “insane’”. They also said “they would be happy to pay if [the landlord] provided regular bills.”
At the hearing, I asked the landlord if and how invoices for water consumption were provided to the tenant. The landlord said this is down via the software Palace on regular intervals. I consider the claim for water rates is proved. This claim is granted.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the 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 onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, 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.
At the hearing, the landlord advised that it carried out an inspection report at the end of the tenancy. The report and photographs of the property were provided. The photographs show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning of $632.50 including GST. The landlord advised that $176.47 including GST of this sum was for carpet cleaning and the remainder was for cleaning the property. I asked how much was charged per hour and the landlord advised that it was a fixed fee based on the number of bedrooms. The landlord said that the carpet had to be cleaned due to dog urine and dog hair. At the hearing, I asked the landlord why they thought there was dog urine in the carpet. Ms Yin and Mr Qi for the landlord said because of the smell, which they said they noticed during the inspection of the premises which was carried out the day following the termination of the tenancy. I accept this evidence.
In their statement to the Tribunal, the tenant denies that there was dog urine on the carpet or that there was dog hair. In the email correspondence of 18 June 2024, the tenant’s response to the claim for cleaning was “... cleaning was not ideal so 1-2 hours of client left. However, over $600 is insane”.
The tenant says that they asked for the inspection to be carried out together. I asked the landlord if the tenant had asked for the inspection to be carried out together. The landlord said that the tenant had asked for the inspection to be carried out in the evening on their final day in the premises. The agents were not available at this time, so the inspection was carried out the following day. The landlord says the tenant was advised of this.
As set out above, I find that the tenant did not comply with its obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, I find that the invoice for cleaning is excessive to get the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant is not required to have the property cleaned to a professional standard or to leave the property ‘motel’ clean. The property is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom premises. The photographs show that it is in relatively good condition so it should be easy to clean. I consider 4 hours to be sufficient. At $50 per hour this would be a cost of $200.00 plus GST. I award $176.47 for the carpet cleaning and $230.00 for general cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is seeking compensation for damage to the door and for damage to the paintwork. 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.
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). 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).
The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage to the door and a pre-inspection report that does not record any damage on the door. In their statement to the Tribunal and the email correspondence of 18 June 2024, the tenants do not dispute that they damaged the door. However, they dispute the amount charged. I find that the door was damaged during the tenancy and that, on the basis of probabilities, this would have been intentional or careless. I also consider the amount of $175 to be a reasonable sum to fix the door. This claim is granted.
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the paintwork at the premises and claims $345.00 to repair this damage. The tenant’s response in the email of 18 June 2024 is that there is some “regular usage consequences” and that the landlord is trying to renovate the premises at their expense. Fair wear and tear is an exception to tenant liability. (See section 49A(2) of the RTA.) Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. (See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.)
The landlord’s pre inspection report and post tenancy photographs show that there is damage to the paintwork and that this was caused during the tenancy. The damage appears to be large scratches, chips and other marks to the walls. The tenancy was for a period of around 18.5 months. I do not consider the damage to be fair wear and tear for such a short tenancy. I consider it is more likely than not to be either careless or intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Home 365 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Lily Zhi Jun has substantially succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 4901535 — net $1,779.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024	$3,321.43	Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024
Water rates	$534.14	Water rates
Painting	$345.00	Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$176.47	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Door repair	$172.50	Door repair
Net award	$1,779.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,779.54

Claims and awards for application 4901535 — net $1,779.54 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024

Amount: $3,321.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 21/05/2024

Water rates

Amount: $534.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Painting

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $176.47
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.
Suncica Majkic and Mike Majkic must pay Home 365 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Lily Zhi Jun $1,779.54 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5875989-003) to Home 365 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Lily Zhi Jun immediately.

Reasons

Ms Yin and Mr Qi attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Prior to the hearing, the tenant had applied for an adjournment. This request was denied. However, the tenant was advised that they could attend by telephone, appoint a representative to attend on their behalf and/or provide their response to the claims in writing. The tenant has provided a written statement to the Tribunal which has been taken into account. I have also considered the tenant’s response to the claims set out in an email from the tenant to the landlord of 18 June 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. At the hearing, the landlord advised of a further claim for rubbish removal. This claim had not been included in the landlord’s application. Therefore, the Tribunal had not given the tenant notice of this claim. For this reason, I declined to hear it.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount of rent arrears owing. The rent ledger shows that the rent was increased from $750 per week to $850 per week in early November 2023. However, the tenant did not increase their payments until 25 November 2023. The rent ledger shows that the tenant ceased paying rent entirely from the period from 27 April 2024 to the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant says that they accept they may owe the landlord “some amount for the rent”. The tenant says the increase to $850 increased the rent to more than market rent. Section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that: On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
The tenant has not made an application to the Tribunal for this or any claim against the landlord. If the tenant wishes to do so, they may by filing an application along with the appropriate filing fee. In the meantime, the landlord is entitled to the expeditious resolution of its claims. 1 The landlord’s claims are for 1 Section 85(1) of the RTA provides: Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. vacated damages and there is no prejudice to any claims the tenant may have by the issuing of these Orders in respect of the landlord’s claims.
The rent ledger proves the amount owing and the claim for rent arrears is granted.

How much is owed for outgoings?

The landlord is seeking water consumption rates of $534.14 for invoices from December 2023 to April 2024. The invoices supporting this claim have been provided. The tenant has not addressed the water rates in their statement to the Tribunal. However, in email correspondence between the parties on 18 June the tenant disputes the amount for water rates saying it was “insane’”. They also said “they would be happy to pay if [the landlord] provided regular bills.”
At the hearing, I asked the landlord if and how invoices for water consumption were provided to the tenant. The landlord said this is down via the software Palace on regular intervals. I consider the claim for water rates is proved. This claim is granted.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the 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 onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, 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.
At the hearing, the landlord advised that it carried out an inspection report at the end of the tenancy. The report and photographs of the property were provided. The photographs show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning of $632.50 including GST. The landlord advised that $176.47 including GST of this sum was for carpet cleaning and the remainder was for cleaning the property. I asked how much was charged per hour and the landlord advised that it was a fixed fee based on the number of bedrooms. The landlord said that the carpet had to be cleaned due to dog urine and dog hair. At the hearing, I asked the landlord why they thought there was dog urine in the carpet. Ms Yin and Mr Qi for the landlord said because of the smell, which they said they noticed during the inspection of the premises which was carried out the day following the termination of the tenancy. I accept this evidence.
In their statement to the Tribunal, the tenant denies that there was dog urine on the carpet or that there was dog hair. In the email correspondence of 18 June 2024, the tenant’s response to the claim for cleaning was “... cleaning was not ideal so 1-2 hours of client left. However, over $600 is insane”.
The tenant says that they asked for the inspection to be carried out together. I asked the landlord if the tenant had asked for the inspection to be carried out together. The landlord said that the tenant had asked for the inspection to be carried out in the evening on their final day in the premises. The agents were not available at this time, so the inspection was carried out the following day. The landlord says the tenant was advised of this.
As set out above, I find that the tenant did not comply with its obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, I find that the invoice for cleaning is excessive to get the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant is not required to have the property cleaned to a professional standard or to leave the property ‘motel’ clean. The property is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom premises. The photographs show that it is in relatively good condition so it should be easy to clean. I consider 4 hours to be sufficient. At $50 per hour this would be a cost of $200.00 plus GST. I award $176.47 for the carpet cleaning and $230.00 for general cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is seeking compensation for damage to the door and for damage to the paintwork. 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.
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). 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).
The landlord has provided photographs showing the damage to the door and a pre-inspection report that does not record any damage on the door. In their statement to the Tribunal and the email correspondence of 18 June 2024, the tenants do not dispute that they damaged the door. However, they dispute the amount charged. I find that the door was damaged during the tenancy and that, on the basis of probabilities, this would have been intentional or careless. I also consider the amount of $175 to be a reasonable sum to fix the door. This claim is granted.
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the paintwork at the premises and claims $345.00 to repair this damage. The tenant’s response in the email of 18 June 2024 is that there is some “regular usage consequences” and that the landlord is trying to renovate the premises at their expense. Fair wear and tear is an exception to tenant liability. (See section 49A(2) of the RTA.) Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. (See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.)
The landlord’s pre inspection report and post tenancy photographs show that there is damage to the paintwork and that this was caused during the tenancy. The damage appears to be large scratches, chips and other marks to the walls. The tenancy was for a period of around 18.5 months. I do not consider the damage to be fair wear and tear for such a short tenancy. I consider it is more likely than not to be either careless or intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Home 365 Property Management Ltd As Agent For Lily Zhi Jun has substantially succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901535 — Rent arrears at 31 Creamer Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901535 — Rent arrears at 31 Creamer Avenue, Belmont, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for outgoings?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for outgoings?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions