What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923761?

The tribunal order states: April Emma Pomare and Waipare Pomare must pay 23 Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4923761?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $191.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923761?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11508444-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923761?

The tribunal order states: April Emma Pomare and Waipare Pomare must pay 23 Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4923761?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $48.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $191.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923761?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11508444-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Caen Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4923761 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923761 — net $2,855.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$191.00		Rubbish removal
Curtain replacement	$129.00		Curtain replacement
Lock replacement 50	$48.75		Lock replacement 50
Cleaning	$80.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$3,000.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less balance of bond		$613.80	Less balance of bond
Total award	$3,469.19	$613.80
Net award	$2,855.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,855.39

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the balance of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean, and a small amount of cleaning was required. I refer to the range hood, stove hob and some cupboards.

The landlord has claimed for rubbish removal. There is a recycling bin full of rubbish that is not for recycling. The tenant denies that the bin belonged to this property. The bin is at the property on 16 May 2024. Given that evidence it is entirely acceptable for the landlord to consider that the bin was rubbish from the tenant.

The landlord also claims for removing an orange bin which should have been collected by the company that provided it. The orange bin was at the property on 16 May 2024 and removed by the landlord on 22 May 2024. The tenant said that the company had advised her that they removed the bin on 23 May 2024. Given that the bin had not been removed by 22 May 2024 the landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for its removal.

The landlord claimed for removal of green waste. The photograph in support of this claim is of a small amount of leaves at the premises on 16 May 2024. I note from the report dated 21 May 2023 that some of the leaves have been removed and some remain. The invoice claimed is for green waste charged based on weight. I do not accept that the small number of leaves are significant enough to warrant a trailer and the weight of waste claimed. That claim is dismissed.

The landlord claims for replacement of a curtain in the lounge due to stains. That claim is awarded.

The landlord claims for repair of a door handle. The tenant said that the door handle was broken in 2022 when it locked and had to be removed by the tenant to gain access. The tenant said that they removed the lock because of this and had advised the property manager at the time. Given that the tenant removed the lock I have awarded the landlord half of the amount claimed given that this was an issue raised by the tenant two years earlier.

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 (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: lounge wall holes, lounge door damage, bedroom one wall holes, bedroom 4 wall holes, dining room wall hole, kitchen windowsill paint damage, hallway hole. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord sought costs of $5,335.00 which included plaster repairs, paint repairs, building repairs and materials. On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that the amount of damage justifies this award. There is evidence of one large wall hole, six small wall holes, marks from the dining table against the wall, a series of nail holes in one bedroom, a missing door handle and damage to the paint on the kitchen windowsill. I am told that some entire walls needed to be repainted but that is not necessarily due to damage alone and will include damage due to fair wear and tear which the tenant is not responsible for. On the evidence produced I award $3,000.00 for repairs.

Some of the bond had previously been released to the landlord to cover rent arrears, water rates and carpet cleaning. The balance of the bond is $613.80 which is applied to reduce the compensation awarded to the landlord.

Because 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For Grant Millington has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923761 — net $2,855.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$191.00		Rubbish removal
Curtain replacement	$129.00		Curtain replacement
Lock replacement 50	$48.75		Lock replacement 50
Cleaning	$80.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$3,000.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less balance of bond		$613.80	Less balance of bond
Total award	$3,469.19	$613.80
Net award	$2,855.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,855.39

Order

April Emma Pomare and Waipare Pomare must pay 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For Grant Millington $2,855.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the balance of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean, and a small amount of cleaning was required. I refer to the range hood, stove hob and some cupboards.
The landlord has claimed for rubbish removal. There is a recycling bin full of rubbish that is not for recycling. The tenant denies that the bin belonged to this property. The bin is at the property on 16 May 2024. Given that evidence it is entirely acceptable for the landlord to consider that the bin was rubbish from the tenant.
The landlord also claims for removing an orange bin which should have been collected by the company that provided it. The orange bin was at the property on 16 May 2024 and removed by the landlord on 22 May 2024. The tenant said that the company had advised her that they removed the bin on 23 May 2024. Given that the bin had not been removed by 22 May 2024 the landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for its removal.
The landlord claimed for removal of green waste. The photograph in support of this claim is of a small amount of leaves at the premises on 16 May 2024. I note from the report dated 21 May 2023 that some of the leaves have been removed and some remain. The invoice claimed is for green waste charged based on weight. I do not accept that the small number of leaves are significant enough to warrant a trailer and the weight of waste claimed. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims for replacement of a curtain in the lounge due to stains. That claim is awarded.
The landlord claims for repair of a door handle. The tenant said that the door handle was broken in 2022 when it locked and had to be removed by the tenant to gain access. The tenant said that they removed the lock because of this and had advised the property manager at the time. Given that the tenant removed the lock I have awarded the landlord half of the amount claimed given that this was an issue raised by the tenant two years earlier.

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 (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: lounge wall holes, lounge door damage, bedroom one wall holes, bedroom 4 wall holes, dining room wall hole, kitchen windowsill paint damage, hallway hole. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought costs of $5,335.00 which included plaster repairs, paint repairs, building repairs and materials. On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that the amount of damage justifies this award. There is evidence of one large wall hole, six small wall holes, marks from the dining table against the wall, a series of nail holes in one bedroom, a missing door handle and damage to the paint on the kitchen windowsill. I am told that some entire walls needed to be repainted but that is not necessarily due to damage alone and will include damage due to fair wear and tear which the tenant is not responsible for. On the evidence produced I award $3,000.00 for repairs.
Some of the bond had previously been released to the landlord to cover rent arrears, water rates and carpet cleaning. The balance of the bond is $613.80 which is applied to reduce the compensation awarded to the landlord.
Because 23 Property Management Limited As Agent For Grant Millington has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923761 — Property damage at 15 Caen Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923761 — Property damage at 15 Caen Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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