What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4909882 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4909882?

Eviction Warrant Costs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $3,480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $985.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,255.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,005.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909882?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11352582-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4909882 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4909882?

Eviction Warrant Costs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $3,480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $985.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,255.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,005.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909882?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11352582-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3A Elliott Avenue, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909882 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

3A Elliott Avenue, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909882 — 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 4909882 — net $10,356.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$3,005.40	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$985.55	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Insurance excess
Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation	$2,255.05	Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation
Lost rent	$3,480.00	Lost rent
Eviction warrant costs	$200.00	Eviction warrant costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,356.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,356.04

Claims and awards for application 4909882 — net $10,356.04 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $3,005.40
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $985.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Insurance excess

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess

Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation

Amount: $2,255.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation

Lost rent

Amount: $3,480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lost rent

Dismissed claims

Compensation — CARPET ROLL

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Lost Rent Property damage Rubbish Removal Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kayla Bomford must pay [The landlord/s] $10,356.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $790.40 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (DC) TT233/02, the District Court held that, in practical terms, the burden of proof requires the applicant to do the following: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. RUBBISH REMOVAL AND KEYS/LOCKS
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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy or return the keys. I deal with each issue in turn below. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks compensation of $3,005.40 for rubbish removal as follows: a. Skip bins x2 $900.00 b. Skip bin excess weight fee$63.80 c. Rubbish bags$41.60 d. Labour $2,000.00
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These show a significant amount of rubbish and miscellaneous household items were left at the property by the tenant. There was a mountain of rubbish left outside the property, and bedrooms were strewn with rubbish and belongings.
The landlord gave evidence that they removed the rubbish themselves with the help of three people. The landlord gave evidence that it took four days to remove the rubbish. The landlord seeks compensation for their time and labour.
The landlord submitted invoices for the hiring of two skip bins and the purchase of rubbish bags. The landlord submitted an invoice proving that one of the bins was overweight and incurred a penalty fee of $63.80.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the amount of rubbish was significant, and it took four people four days to remove it. The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for rubbish removal. I consider $2,000.00 to be a reasonable amount of compensation for the landlord’s time and labour given the amount of rubbish left at the property.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted in full for $3,005.40. Keys
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had the locks replaced as a result. The landlord submitted an invoice from Bullshot NZ Ltd for $985.55. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount.

DAMAGE

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.
The landlord’s insurer paid the landlord $23,233.45 as a cash settlement for the landlord’s claim.
The landlord’s insurance excess was $1,200.00.
The landlord submitted invoices from Ron Reed Builders Limited for a total of $19,474.05 and KO Property Maintenance for a total of $9,349.50.
The landlord submitted an invoice from AG Glass for $1,489.38.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Bunnings for a total of $175.60. The landlord claims this was for the purchase of materials to repair the balustrade.
In total, the landlord claims that they spent $30,488.50 to repair damage caused by the tenant. The landlord’s insurer paid $23,233.45, which leaves a shortfall of $7,255.05. The landlord seeks this amount, plus $1,200.00 for their insurance excess from the tenant. That is a total of $8,455.05.
At the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that the damage caused by the tenant included: a. Broken windows (x2) b. Holes in the walls and doors c. Graffiti on the walls in the house d. Graffiti on the deck e. Broken front door lock
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show the property in a very good condition. The landlord also submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy, which show it in a very poor condition. There are large amounts of graffiti on some of the walls and deck, as well as holes in the walls and doors.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord and evidence given at the hearing, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken windows (x2) b. Holes in the walls and doors c. Removal of internal doors d. Graffiti on the walls in the house e. Graffiti on the deck and outdoor steps f. Broken front door lock g. Broken blinds h. Stained carpet
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord was unable to confirm the age of the property at the hearing, but gave evidence that according to www.homes.co.nz it was built in the 1960’s. No evidence was given about when the property was last painted or the age of the carpet.
The landlord has had an extensive amount of repair work completed, including repainting the inside of the house, repainting the deck, laying new carpet and hanging new doors. The value of the property has increased as a result. Therefore, I consider there needs to be an adjustment to the total amount claimed by the landlord for repairs. The landlord must be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They should not be better or worse off. I consider an adjustment of $5,000.00 to be appropriate to reflect betterment and depreciation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage is granted for an adjusted amount of $3,455.05 broken down as follows: a. Insurance excess: $1,200.00; and b. Shortfall for repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation): $2,255.05.

LOST RENT

The landlord seeks 24 weeks lost rent calculated at a rate of $700.00 per week ($16,800.00 total), as compensation for the time that the house could not be rented out while significant repair work was carried out.
The weekly rent for this tenancy was $640.00 per week not $700.00. At the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that $700.00 per week was the average market rate for a house of this kind around the time the tenancy ended in mid- September 2024. No evidence to support this claim was submitted.
The landlord gave evidence that there was a delay in completing the repairs due to a dispute with the landlord’s insurer.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was re-tenanted to family once the repairs were completed. The landlord did not provide a copy of a new tenancy agreement or confirm the amount of rent the landlord’s family paid.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, I am satisfied that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises might not be able to be re-tenanted immediately given the extent of the damage sustained. Further, a landlord cannot expect that premises will be immediately re-tenanted after the end of a tenancy.
The tenant is not liable for any delay in repairs due to a failure or dispute between the landlord and their insurer.
In all the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that compensation of six weeks’ rent at $640.00 per week, which is the rate applied during the tenancy, is justified. Therefore, I award $3,840.00 in lost rent.

EVICTION WARRANT COSTS

A tenant is required to quit the premises upon the termination of the tenancy. 1
This tenancy ended at 11:59pm on 9 April 2024 by order of the Tribunal. The tenant did not vacate the premises on this date and the landlord applied for an eviction warrant to forcibly remove the tenant.
The landlord provided an invoice for $200.00 from the Ministry of Justice.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $200.00. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY’S FEES TO ATTEND THE TRIBUNAL
The landlord claims that their property management company charged them $86.25 to file a claim with the Tribunal and attend the hearing. The landlord submitted a screenshot of their bank statement showing payment for this amount, but no invoice from the property management company.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the payment made by the landlord to their property management company was for preparation and attendance at the Tribunal.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for this matter is dismissed.

CARPET ROLL

The landlord claims there was a roll of carpet belonging to them in the garage of the property that the tenant took at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation of $400.00 to replace the roll of carpet.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the roll of carpet taken during the tenancy. The photograph is not clear and I am unable to discern the quality of the carpet from it. The landlord did not give evidence about the type of carpet it was, its age or proof that it was worth $400.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for this matter is dismissed. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e).

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

The landlord requested name suppression.
The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I have ordered suppression of their name and 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 4909882 — net $10,356.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$3,005.40	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$985.55	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Insurance excess
Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation	$2,255.05	Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation
Lost rent	$3,480.00	Lost rent
Eviction warrant costs	$200.00	Eviction warrant costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,356.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,356.04

Claims and awards for application 4909882 — net $10,356.04 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $3,005.40
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $985.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Insurance excess

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess

Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation

Amount: $2,255.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation

Lost rent

Amount: $3,480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lost rent

Dismissed claims

Compensation — CARPET ROLL

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Lost Rent Property damage Rubbish Removal Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kayla Bomford must pay [The landlord/s] $10,356.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $790.40 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (DC) TT233/02, the District Court held that, in practical terms, the burden of proof requires the applicant to do the following: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. RUBBISH REMOVAL AND KEYS/LOCKS
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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy or return the keys. I deal with each issue in turn below. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks compensation of $3,005.40 for rubbish removal as follows: a. Skip bins x2 $900.00 b. Skip bin excess weight fee$63.80 c. Rubbish bags$41.60 d. Labour $2,000.00
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These show a significant amount of rubbish and miscellaneous household items were left at the property by the tenant. There was a mountain of rubbish left outside the property, and bedrooms were strewn with rubbish and belongings.
The landlord gave evidence that they removed the rubbish themselves with the help of three people. The landlord gave evidence that it took four days to remove the rubbish. The landlord seeks compensation for their time and labour.
The landlord submitted invoices for the hiring of two skip bins and the purchase of rubbish bags. The landlord submitted an invoice proving that one of the bins was overweight and incurred a penalty fee of $63.80.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the amount of rubbish was significant, and it took four people four days to remove it. The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for rubbish removal. I consider $2,000.00 to be a reasonable amount of compensation for the landlord’s time and labour given the amount of rubbish left at the property.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted in full for $3,005.40. Keys
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had the locks replaced as a result. The landlord submitted an invoice from Bullshot NZ Ltd for $985.55. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount.

DAMAGE

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.
The landlord’s insurer paid the landlord $23,233.45 as a cash settlement for the landlord’s claim.
The landlord’s insurance excess was $1,200.00.
The landlord submitted invoices from Ron Reed Builders Limited for a total of $19,474.05 and KO Property Maintenance for a total of $9,349.50.
The landlord submitted an invoice from AG Glass for $1,489.38.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Bunnings for a total of $175.60. The landlord claims this was for the purchase of materials to repair the balustrade.
In total, the landlord claims that they spent $30,488.50 to repair damage caused by the tenant. The landlord’s insurer paid $23,233.45, which leaves a shortfall of $7,255.05. The landlord seeks this amount, plus $1,200.00 for their insurance excess from the tenant. That is a total of $8,455.05.
At the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that the damage caused by the tenant included: a. Broken windows (x2) b. Holes in the walls and doors c. Graffiti on the walls in the house d. Graffiti on the deck e. Broken front door lock
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show the property in a very good condition. The landlord also submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy, which show it in a very poor condition. There are large amounts of graffiti on some of the walls and deck, as well as holes in the walls and doors.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord and evidence given at the hearing, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken windows (x2) b. Holes in the walls and doors c. Removal of internal doors d. Graffiti on the walls in the house e. Graffiti on the deck and outdoor steps f. Broken front door lock g. Broken blinds h. Stained carpet
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord was unable to confirm the age of the property at the hearing, but gave evidence that according to www.homes.co.nz it was built in the 1960’s. No evidence was given about when the property was last painted or the age of the carpet.
The landlord has had an extensive amount of repair work completed, including repainting the inside of the house, repainting the deck, laying new carpet and hanging new doors. The value of the property has increased as a result. Therefore, I consider there needs to be an adjustment to the total amount claimed by the landlord for repairs. The landlord must be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They should not be better or worse off. I consider an adjustment of $5,000.00 to be appropriate to reflect betterment and depreciation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage is granted for an adjusted amount of $3,455.05 broken down as follows: a. Insurance excess: $1,200.00; and b. Shortfall for repairs (less adjustment for betterment and depreciation): $2,255.05.

LOST RENT

The landlord seeks 24 weeks lost rent calculated at a rate of $700.00 per week ($16,800.00 total), as compensation for the time that the house could not be rented out while significant repair work was carried out.
The weekly rent for this tenancy was $640.00 per week not $700.00. At the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that $700.00 per week was the average market rate for a house of this kind around the time the tenancy ended in mid- September 2024. No evidence to support this claim was submitted.
The landlord gave evidence that there was a delay in completing the repairs due to a dispute with the landlord’s insurer.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was re-tenanted to family once the repairs were completed. The landlord did not provide a copy of a new tenancy agreement or confirm the amount of rent the landlord’s family paid.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, I am satisfied that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises might not be able to be re-tenanted immediately given the extent of the damage sustained. Further, a landlord cannot expect that premises will be immediately re-tenanted after the end of a tenancy.
The tenant is not liable for any delay in repairs due to a failure or dispute between the landlord and their insurer.
In all the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that compensation of six weeks’ rent at $640.00 per week, which is the rate applied during the tenancy, is justified. Therefore, I award $3,840.00 in lost rent.

EVICTION WARRANT COSTS

A tenant is required to quit the premises upon the termination of the tenancy. 1
This tenancy ended at 11:59pm on 9 April 2024 by order of the Tribunal. The tenant did not vacate the premises on this date and the landlord applied for an eviction warrant to forcibly remove the tenant.
The landlord provided an invoice for $200.00 from the Ministry of Justice.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $200.00. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY’S FEES TO ATTEND THE TRIBUNAL
The landlord claims that their property management company charged them $86.25 to file a claim with the Tribunal and attend the hearing. The landlord submitted a screenshot of their bank statement showing payment for this amount, but no invoice from the property management company.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the payment made by the landlord to their property management company was for preparation and attendance at the Tribunal.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for this matter is dismissed.

CARPET ROLL

The landlord claims there was a roll of carpet belonging to them in the garage of the property that the tenant took at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation of $400.00 to replace the roll of carpet.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the roll of carpet taken during the tenancy. The photograph is not clear and I am unable to discern the quality of the carpet from it. The landlord did not give evidence about the type of carpet it was, its age or proof that it was worth $400.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for this matter is dismissed. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e).

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

The landlord requested name suppression.
The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I have ordered suppression of their name and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909882 — Property damage at 3A Elliott Avenue, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909882 — Property damage at 3A Elliott Avenue, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

DAMAGE

LOST RENT

EVICTION WARRANT COSTS

CARPET ROLL

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

DAMAGE

LOST RENT

EVICTION WARRANT COSTS

CARPET ROLL

FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions