What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920393 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay $9,498.89 to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4920393?

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 4920393?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11666618-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920393 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay $9,498.89 to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4920393?

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 4920393?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11666618-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Kupe Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920393 — Leaks

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay $9,498.89 to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately, calculated as follows: Description of AwardAmount Unpaid rent$191.20 Cleaning$600.00 Rubbish removal$1,868.25 Glass shelves$50.00 Towel rails$180.00 Bathroom vanity light$150.00 Repainting kitchen and lounge cupboards$2,000.00 Plumbing repairs$1,038.00 General repairs (multiple rooms)$1,000.00 Garage workbench removal$3,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total$10,098.89 Minus Bond-$600.00 Tenant to Pay$9,498.89
Bond Services to pay $600.00 to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The second of two substantive hearings.
The Landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced in 2019 and the Tenant vacated on or about 28 June 2024 following the service of a 63-day termination notice on 24 April 2024, and some delays on the part of the Tenant in finding alternative accommodation.
The property was formerly occupied by the Landlord. Several witnesses who had visited the property during and prior to the tenancy described it as being well maintained, with regular attention to gardens, cleanliness, and maintenance. They provide letters, and one was spoken to during an earlier phone hearing, confirming his statement.
The Landlord also provided photographs of the premises prior to the tenancy, and when comparing these photographs of the premises with photographs of the premises after the tenancy, it was clear to me that the condition of the premises, inside and outside, and deteriorated during the tenancy.
After the end of the tenancy, the Landlord claimed that the property had been left in a state of disrepair, unclean, and with significant rubbish and damage. The Landlord now seeks compensation for those costs.
The Landlord’s father managed the tenancy until his passing on 8 February 2024. The Tenants often referred, in their evidence, to discussions with this deceased individual.

How much does the Tenant owe in unpaid rent?

The Tenant did fail to quit the premises on the vacate date. I do not have bank statements which show missed rent payments, but I accept the Landlord’s records concerning the outstanding rent arrears: $191.20

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning
The Landlord provided evidence of extensive cleaning being required. Two cleaners spent two full days cleaning the property at a cost of $600. The landlord described the house as filthy, with significant grime in the shower and general dirtiness throughout.
The Tenant stated she and her husband - not present at the first hearing, but given full opportunity to appear, participate and be heard at the second hearing - did the best she could under the circumstances, noting that the house was difficult to keep warm and had issues with damp. She also noted that they had moved her bed into the lounge, were not using most of the home, and made efforts to clean. However, she did not dispute the Landlord’s description of the cleaning required after the tenancy ended.
A significant development occurred during the second hearing when the male Tenant admitted to smoking inside the premises during the tenancy. I asked him whether he smoked outside of the property also, and he replied, “sometimes”. This admission provided a plausible explanation for the staining and discolouration observed on walls, the heat pump, and other surfaces, and also gave context to the Tenant’s repainting of interior walls.
The timing of this disclosure - made only late in the proceedings - undermined the Tenants’ overall credibility. Had they been forthcoming about this from the outset, rather than attributing the property’s condition to a lack of maintenance by the Landlord’s father, greater weight could have been given to their version of events.
I did not find the Tenants to be credible witnesses. Their evidence minimised or failed to acknowledge obvious damage and cleanliness issues at the premises.
Additionally, the male Tenant’s communications with the Landlord included language that was inappropriate and confrontational, and it was of concern that both Tenants had to be trespassed from the Landlord’s mother’s residence.
By the conclusion of the hearing, it was evident that the Tenants were willing to tailor their evidence to suit their narrative, including making allegations against the Landlord’s father – an individual who was not present and unable to respond. This further impacted the reliability of their evidence. I award $600.00 for the exit clean. Rubbish Removal
The Landlord claimed that a large volume of rubbish (9–10 cubic metres) had been left behind, including green waste, plastic, furniture, and household rubbish, some of which had been thrown into a woodshed. Dan Evans, a local contractor, was engaged to remove the rubbish, at a cost of $2,018.25. I called Mr Evans, and he confirmed the extent of the rubbish left behind.
The Tenant did not specifically dispute that rubbish remained at the end of the tenancy, though she did not accept responsibility for all of it. At the second hearing, the male Tenant denied leaving behind any rubbish at all but acknowledged leaving a box submerged in a pond. Mr Evans explained he removed a lot of rubbish from that pond, including items contained inside the box.
There was green waste left beside a boundary fence, and the Tenants claimed the Landlord’s father had engaged a contractor to prune the trees and when they told him the branches had been left behind, he told them to leave them beside the fence.
Given the evidence provided, including a quote and witness accounts, I am satisfied the rubbish removal was necessary and the cost reasonable, but I reduce it by $150.00 to provide for a margin of error, for issues such as the disposal of green waste which would have fallen to the Landlord to remove from the premises. I award $1,868.25. Chattels
The following chattels were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy: a. Glass shelves ($89.94): The Landlord stated these were pulled from the wall. The Tenant denied removing them and claimed they were already on the floor when they moved into the property. The Tenant did not explain what had happened to the shelves as they were not present at the end of the tenancy. However, it is possible they could have been removed by the contractor. This was not put to Mr Evans. The Landlord has produced a photograph showing the glass shelves during her occupation of the premises and I think it very unlikely these shelves would have been removed, unless by force. I award $50.00. b. Towel rails ($210.81): The Landlord said all towel rails had been removed. The Tenant stated they were cheap and fell down easily but did not deny they were missing. I award $180.00, accounting for the age of the fitting. c. Bathroom vanity light ($179.00): The Landlord claimed the fitting was smashed and had to be replaced. The Tenant could not explain how the damage occurred. I award $150.00, accounting for the age of the fitting.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied these chattels were damaged or removed during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 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. See section 49B(3)(b) 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. 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 occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: a. Kitchen Cupboards ($2,000.00): The Landlord claimed the kitchen cupboards and lounge required repainting due to deterioration and stated the Tenant had painted over wallpaper that was in good condition prior to the tenancy (although this is not clear from the photographs). The Tenants gave conflicting evidence about who undertook the painting, initially stating at the first hearing that the previous Landlord (the current Landlord’s father) completed the work during their tenancy, but later stating that it was done before their occupancy. The Landlord maintained her father would not have done the work himself and would have engaged a professional. A witness familiar with the property, and a painter by trade, gave evidence that he had spoken with the Landlord’s father about the condition of the property before his death, and no painting was mentioned. The male Tenant ultimately admitted that the Landlord’s father had never been inside the house, when I asked whether he came into the home for inspections, to check issues they had reported to him. The repainting was carried out by the Landlord and costed at a conservative rate of $100 per hour. The Tenant disputed whether the work was necessary, but I find the discolouration and accumulation of was likely caused or contributed to by cigarette smoke. I award $2,000.00. b. Plumbing issues ($1,038.00): The Landlord claimed $1,038.00 for plumbing repairs required immediately after the tenancy ended. A licensed plumber was called on 30 June 2024 and attended the property on 1 July 2024. The plumber replaced several fittings throughout the property, including: i. Two bath taps ($169.57) ii. Two kitchen taps ($169.57) iii. Toilet tap and hose ($20.87) iv. Toilet cistern ballcock ($40.87) v. Shower slide ($158.26), which the Landlord claims was broken by the Tenants vi. Outside hose tap ($18.26) vii. Labour (3 hours – $281.74) viii. Service fee ($26.09) c. The invoice, dated 4 July 2024, was provided in evidence and shows the total amount paid. The Tenant did not directly dispute that the work was required but stated that the plumbing issues had existed during the tenancy and suggested they were due to poor maintenance. However, the nature and extent of the repairs – including multiple leaking taps and a broken shower slide – suggest damage beyond fair wear and tear. I am satisfied on the evidence that the repairs were necessary and resulted from the Tenants’ use of the premises. The immediate neighbour reported that a tap behind the property burst and was left running for an extended period during the tenancy, which was surprising given the Tenant’s employment with a water supply company. The claim is allowed in full. d. General Repairs ($1,000.00): In the bathroom, all towel rails were pulled off the walls, two glass shelves were torn out, and a glass light fitting was broken. The shower slide and light were damaged, and the heat lamp bulbs were missing. The vanity cupboard was filled with rubbish and showed signs of water damage. The bathroom blind was filthy and no longer retracted. In the kitchen, the extractor fan was extremely dirty, its filters needed replacing, and the light fitting, and bulb, were missing. The kitchen cupboards, drawers, and pantry had been painted grey without the Landlord’s permission. The Landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs. In the dining room, the walls had been damaged and required repair and repainting. The Tenant confirmed a deep gouge had been carved into the wall by a revolving office chair. In light of the scope of damage across multiple rooms, the Tribunal is satisfied that the $1,000.00 claimed for repairs is reasonable and proportionate. e. Work bench ($3,000.00): A 7-metre-long solid wood workbench was removed from the garage. In its place, the Tenant had stacked firewood. There had been firewood in front of the workbench, the Tenant explained, and he would have had to remove that stack of firewood first. This does not mean the Tenants did not remove the workbench. The neighbour said he never saw the workbench being removed, and it was a big workbench. There was a broken power point near the workbench at the end of the tenancy which the Landlord said had been intact prior to the tenancy. It is quite likely the workbench was removed by the Tenant during the tenancy. On balance I accept that the bench was removed during the tenancy, and the Landlord was not adequately compensated. I award $2,500.00 for replacement of the work bench, because of its age and condition at the start of the tenancy, noting too, it is an item with a long lifespan. f. Heat pump and garage powerpoint: No amounts were claimed for these items and no conclusive evidence was provided. g. Resowing lawn: A minor cost was mentioned but not claimed due to lack of a receipt. h. Unpaid losses and travel expenses: I cannot approve these claims due to lack of particulars and evidence, and based on the general principal, that travel from out of town, in connection with a tenancy, is a business related expense and is not a recoverable loss.
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.
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920393 — Leaks at 8 Kupe Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920393 — Leaks at 8 Kupe Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

Order

Reasons

How much does the Tenant owe in unpaid rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much does the Tenant owe in unpaid rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.