What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927093 about?

The tribunal order states: Janie Harata Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $2,314.09 immediately being

How much money was awarded in case 4927093?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Tile: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $805.00 awarded to tenant; Repainting (Portion: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains minus…: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Drainage Cover: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $477.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927093?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10907781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927093 about?

The tribunal order states: Janie Harata Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $2,314.09 immediately being

How much money was awarded in case 4927093?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Tile: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $805.00 awarded to tenant; Repainting (Portion: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains minus…: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Drainage Cover: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $477.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927093?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10907781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8A Eske Place, Highland Park, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927093 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927093 — net $2,314.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$477.65		Water rates
House and curtain cleaning	$1,265.00		House and curtain cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,725.00		Rubbish removal
Pest control	$345.00		Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$299.00		Carpet Cleaning
Roof cleaning	$115.00		Roof cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: curtains minus depreciation	$520.00		Replace furnishings: curtains minus depreciation
Kitchen tile	$345.00		Kitchen tile
Shower drainage cover	$92.00		Shower drainage cover
Repainting (portion	$1,000.00		Repainting (portion
Rent credit		$805.00	Rent credit
Total award	$6,319.09	$805.00
Net award	$2,314.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,314.09

Order

Janie Harata Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $2,314.09 immediately being compensation, water bills and reimbursement of filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a rent credit from overpayment of her rent to the landlord. The landlord accepts that the tenant did overpay on the rent and acknowledges an overpayment to the tenant of $805.00.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 10 June 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $477.65 owing at the end of the tenancy for water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a pre-let inspection and photos and an exit report and photos and invoices for work carried out on the property after the end of the tenancy.
The invoices claimed are $1265.00 for house cleaning and curtain cleaning, $1725.00 for rubbish removal, $299.00 for carpet cleaning, $115.00 for lawn mowing, $115.00 to clean rubbish off the roof and $345.00 for pest control.
The exit inspection and photos show a property that was dirty, and rubbish was left throughout the property. The carpets were very heavily stained and dirty. It appeared that someone had been throwing rubbish out of a bedroom window on the second floor on to the roof below. There were photos of rubbish scattered across the roof that required someone to clean it. The lawns were overgrown and there were cock roaches in the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for the cleaning, lawns, pest control and rubbish removal.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: -Curtains and curtain rods for the upstairs bedrooms. -Shower drain cover.
The landlord advised that the curtains in the upstairs bedroom were approximately 4 years old and were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord sought $800.00 plus GST for the replacement curtains. I have granted the cost of replacing the curtains minus 40% depreciation given that the curtains were 4-5 years old. The amount awarded for the curtains is $520.00.
The shower drainage cover was missing from the shower. The landlord provided an invoice for $92.00 to replace the shower drain. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the shower drainage cover.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and has provided an invoice to cover the replacement of 25 light bulbs. The landlord said the electrician simply replaced all the light bulbs whether they needed it or not.
I cannot award the cost of the replacement light bulbs because the landlord cannot state whether they needed replacing or not. I am dismissing the landlords claim for the lightbulbs.

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 landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Broken tiles in the kitchen -Broken doorknobs -Broken window latches -Broken sliding door wheels -Kick board in kitchen. -Walls, ceilings, window frames, doors, and door frames damage to paintwork
The landlord has provided detailed photos of the damage and invoices for the cost of repair.
The tenant accepts that she is responsible for the damage to the lounge tiles. I am granting the sum of $345.00 for the replacement of the tiles.
This property is around 40 years old. The landlord advised that it had been repainted inside in 2022. However, the landlord terminated the tenancy given 90 days’ notice on 28 February 2024 because the landlord said that the property needed to have extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment.
I accept that the tenant did cause some damage to the paintwork on the window frames and walls, however given the fact that there was to be a major refurbishment I am not awarding the $8000.00 the landlord is seeking for a full house repaint.
I have determined a nominal amount of $1000.00 is adequate to put the landlord back to the position they would have been in had the tenant not caused damage but is not in a better position.
I am dismissing the landlord full claim for $8000.00 for repainting. The tenant’s liability is $1000.00.
The house is old and in need of refurbishment. The tenant should not be expected to pay for replacing 40-year-old broken window latches and doorknobs. Similarly, the kick board in the kitchen and the sliding door wheels in the lounge. These are maintenance issues for an older property.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for window latches, doorknobs, kitchen kick board and sliding wheels.
The damage I have found is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord immediately from the bond centre to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord. The rent credit of $805.00 is not to be refunded to the tenant but used towards the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord and the tenant have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. I am granting the landlord suppression of their name and details as they have been largely successful with their application.
I am not granting the tenant suppression, because while it is correct that her application for her rent credit was granted, the landlord’s claims against her were compelling.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927093 — net $2,314.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$477.65		Water rates
House and curtain cleaning	$1,265.00		House and curtain cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,725.00		Rubbish removal
Pest control	$345.00		Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$299.00		Carpet Cleaning
Roof cleaning	$115.00		Roof cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00		Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: curtains minus depreciation	$520.00		Replace furnishings: curtains minus depreciation
Kitchen tile	$345.00		Kitchen tile
Shower drainage cover	$92.00		Shower drainage cover
Repainting (portion	$1,000.00		Repainting (portion
Rent credit		$805.00	Rent credit
Total award	$6,319.09	$805.00
Net award	$2,314.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,314.09

Order

Janie Harata Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $2,314.09 immediately being compensation, water bills and reimbursement of filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a rent credit from overpayment of her rent to the landlord. The landlord accepts that the tenant did overpay on the rent and acknowledges an overpayment to the tenant of $805.00.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 10 June 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $477.65 owing at the end of the tenancy for water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a pre-let inspection and photos and an exit report and photos and invoices for work carried out on the property after the end of the tenancy.
The invoices claimed are $1265.00 for house cleaning and curtain cleaning, $1725.00 for rubbish removal, $299.00 for carpet cleaning, $115.00 for lawn mowing, $115.00 to clean rubbish off the roof and $345.00 for pest control.
The exit inspection and photos show a property that was dirty, and rubbish was left throughout the property. The carpets were very heavily stained and dirty. It appeared that someone had been throwing rubbish out of a bedroom window on the second floor on to the roof below. There were photos of rubbish scattered across the roof that required someone to clean it. The lawns were overgrown and there were cock roaches in the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claims for the cleaning, lawns, pest control and rubbish removal.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: -Curtains and curtain rods for the upstairs bedrooms. -Shower drain cover.
The landlord advised that the curtains in the upstairs bedroom were approximately 4 years old and were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord sought $800.00 plus GST for the replacement curtains. I have granted the cost of replacing the curtains minus 40% depreciation given that the curtains were 4-5 years old. The amount awarded for the curtains is $520.00.
The shower drainage cover was missing from the shower. The landlord provided an invoice for $92.00 to replace the shower drain. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the shower drainage cover.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and has provided an invoice to cover the replacement of 25 light bulbs. The landlord said the electrician simply replaced all the light bulbs whether they needed it or not.
I cannot award the cost of the replacement light bulbs because the landlord cannot state whether they needed replacing or not. I am dismissing the landlords claim for the lightbulbs.

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 landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Broken tiles in the kitchen -Broken doorknobs -Broken window latches -Broken sliding door wheels -Kick board in kitchen. -Walls, ceilings, window frames, doors, and door frames damage to paintwork
The landlord has provided detailed photos of the damage and invoices for the cost of repair.
The tenant accepts that she is responsible for the damage to the lounge tiles. I am granting the sum of $345.00 for the replacement of the tiles.
This property is around 40 years old. The landlord advised that it had been repainted inside in 2022. However, the landlord terminated the tenancy given 90 days’ notice on 28 February 2024 because the landlord said that the property needed to have extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment.
I accept that the tenant did cause some damage to the paintwork on the window frames and walls, however given the fact that there was to be a major refurbishment I am not awarding the $8000.00 the landlord is seeking for a full house repaint.
I have determined a nominal amount of $1000.00 is adequate to put the landlord back to the position they would have been in had the tenant not caused damage but is not in a better position.
I am dismissing the landlord full claim for $8000.00 for repainting. The tenant’s liability is $1000.00.
The house is old and in need of refurbishment. The tenant should not be expected to pay for replacing 40-year-old broken window latches and doorknobs. Similarly, the kick board in the kitchen and the sliding door wheels in the lounge. These are maintenance issues for an older property.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for window latches, doorknobs, kitchen kick board and sliding wheels.
The damage I have found is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord immediately from the bond centre to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord. The rent credit of $805.00 is not to be refunded to the tenant but used towards the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord and the tenant have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. I am granting the landlord suppression of their name and details as they have been largely successful with their application.
I am not granting the tenant suppression, because while it is correct that her application for her rent credit was granted, the landlord’s claims against her were compelling.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927093 — Cleanliness at 8A Eske Place, Highland Park, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927093 — Cleanliness at 8A Eske Place, Highland Park, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions