What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4908071?

The tribunal order states: Alishia Hopkins must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4908071?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908071?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094585-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4908071?

The tribunal order states: Alishia Hopkins must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4908071?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908071?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094585-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Kotahi Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908071 — Property damage

Order

Alishia Hopkins must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Rimoni Leota $4,284.70 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 13 November 2024. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant on the contact numbers provided in the application. I proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence as I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed.
The landlord has applied for unpaid water rates and compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 May 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 has proven in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The claim is supported by photographic evidence. The photographs clearly show that the tenant left the property in a poor condition. There was significant dirt and grime on all surfaces, which required thorough cleaning. The rangehood, oven, cupboards, and shower were all dirty, with visible marks and residue. Additionally, there were numerous cobwebs and stains on the walls throughout the property, further indicating a lack of proper cleaning.
The flooring also needed attention, with dust and dirt visible on the surfaces. It required both vacuuming and mopping to restore it to an acceptable condition. On the deck, there was a lot of dog waste, which was left unattended. Outside the property, there was also a large amount of rubbish and debris scattered around, contributing to the overall untidy state of the property.
To address these issues, the owner arranged for cleaning to be carried out by himself and his team. This helped to keep the costs low. In total, it took three people working over the weekend to bring the property up to a reasonable standard of cleanliness.
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: The window frame had sustained paint damage, and there also appeared to be additional damage likely caused by a dog chewing on it. The walls throughout the property were damaged and poorly patched. Additionally, a hole had been made in the wall, which required proper repair and repainting. A small gate was installed for the dogs without prior approval. This installation caused damage to the weatherboard. 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.

Order

Alishia Hopkins must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Rimoni Leota $4,284.70 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 13 November 2024. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant on the contact numbers provided in the application. I proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence as I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed.
The landlord has applied for unpaid water rates and compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 May 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 has proven in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The claim is supported by photographic evidence. The photographs clearly show that the tenant left the property in a poor condition. There was significant dirt and grime on all surfaces, which required thorough cleaning. The rangehood, oven, cupboards, and shower were all dirty, with visible marks and residue. Additionally, there were numerous cobwebs and stains on the walls throughout the property, further indicating a lack of proper cleaning.
The flooring also needed attention, with dust and dirt visible on the surfaces. It required both vacuuming and mopping to restore it to an acceptable condition. On the deck, there was a lot of dog waste, which was left unattended. Outside the property, there was also a large amount of rubbish and debris scattered around, contributing to the overall untidy state of the property.
To address these issues, the owner arranged for cleaning to be carried out by himself and his team. This helped to keep the costs low. In total, it took three people working over the weekend to bring the property up to a reasonable standard of cleanliness.
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: The window frame had sustained paint damage, and there also appeared to be additional damage likely caused by a dog chewing on it. The walls throughout the property were damaged and poorly patched. Additionally, a hole had been made in the wall, which required proper repair and repainting. A small gate was installed for the dogs without prior approval. This installation caused damage to the weatherboard. 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908071 — Property damage at 20 Kotahi Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908071 — Property damage at 20 Kotahi Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management