What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952874 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 4952874?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Fence: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; 2x Doors: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Mirror: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Gutter: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Strainer: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Towel Rail: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11146004-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952874 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 4952874?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Fence: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; 2x Doors: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Mirror: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Gutter: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Strainer: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Towel Rail: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11146004-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 29 Aeronautic Road, Takanini, Takanini Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952874 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 29 Aeronautic Road, Takanini, Takanini Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952874 — 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 4952874 — net $3,304.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$483.00	Window repairs
Repairs: 2x doors	$345.00	Repairs: 2x doors
Replace furnishings: towel rail	$80.50	Replace furnishings: towel rail
Repairs: gutter	$253.00	Repairs: gutter
Repairs: shower strainer	$207.00	Repairs: shower strainer
Paint fence	$552.00	Paint fence
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$575.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Bathroom mirror	$115.00	Repairs: Bathroom mirror
Lock/key replacement	$207.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,304.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,304.50

Claims and awards for application 4952874 — net $3,304.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Window repairs

Amount: $483.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Repairs: 2x doors

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 2x doors

Replace furnishings: towel rail

Amount: $80.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: towel rail

Repairs: gutter

Amount: $253.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: gutter

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Summer Helena Raumati must pay [The landlord/s] $3,304.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and repair of windows, doors and replacement shower strainer, towel rail and bathroom mirror, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began in 2021 and ended on the 28 December 2023. Service
The applicant landlord did not file this application for vacated damages until July 2024 despite having the cleaning and repairs done shortly after the tenancy.
Because the landlord’s application was more than 2 months after the tenancy ended the usual rules of service do not apply. The applicant is required to provide the Tribunal with an address for the tenant which has been used in the last 2 months.
The landlord says that the tenant is a tenant in another of the houses it manages and has provided evidence of that. The tenant has been served at that address and therefore I am satisfied that service of the claim, evidence, and the notice of hearing for today’s hearing have been served at an address where the tenant now lives.

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 landlord completed a final inspection of the property on the28 December 2023. The inspection shows that the tenant had moved most of her belongings out of the property and had made some attempt at cleaning. However, the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenant did not remove all of her belongings from the property and some rubbish was left behind which the landlord had to remove.
The landlord claimed $450 plus GST for cleaning. The narration on the invoice records a ‘deep clean’ and has an itemised account of the cleaning that was done. I do not consider that a deep clean was necessary to bring the property up to a reasonable standard, and so I therefore award the landlord $300 plus GST for cleaning.
I consider the rubbish cost of $500 plus GST reasonable and award that amount.
The carpet was heavily stained and needed to be cleaned.
The shower strainer was missing at the end of the tenancy and the landlord had to replace that.
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: a. Broken windows b. Broken doors x 2 c. Locks on doors broken. d. Graffiti on outside fence. e. Bathroom mirror broken. f. Broken guttering and downpipe.
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. Claims that have not been proven.
The landlord claimed the cost of repainting the deck. The paint on the deck is worn. It is as a result of fair wear and tear and the tenant is not responsible for that.
The landlord claimed that the cost of repairing sliders on the shower doors. This is a maintenance item and therefore the tenant is not liable. Name suppression and filing fee.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant them name suppression as requested.

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 4952874 — net $3,304.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$483.00	Window repairs
Repairs: 2x doors	$345.00	Repairs: 2x doors
Replace furnishings: towel rail	$80.50	Replace furnishings: towel rail
Repairs: gutter	$253.00	Repairs: gutter
Repairs: shower strainer	$207.00	Repairs: shower strainer
Paint fence	$552.00	Paint fence
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$575.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Bathroom mirror	$115.00	Repairs: Bathroom mirror
Lock/key replacement	$207.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,304.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,304.50

Claims and awards for application 4952874 — net $3,304.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Window repairs

Amount: $483.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Repairs: 2x doors

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 2x doors

Replace furnishings: towel rail

Amount: $80.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: towel rail

Repairs: gutter

Amount: $253.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: gutter

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Summer Helena Raumati must pay [The landlord/s] $3,304.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and repair of windows, doors and replacement shower strainer, towel rail and bathroom mirror, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began in 2021 and ended on the 28 December 2023. Service
The applicant landlord did not file this application for vacated damages until July 2024 despite having the cleaning and repairs done shortly after the tenancy.
Because the landlord’s application was more than 2 months after the tenancy ended the usual rules of service do not apply. The applicant is required to provide the Tribunal with an address for the tenant which has been used in the last 2 months.
The landlord says that the tenant is a tenant in another of the houses it manages and has provided evidence of that. The tenant has been served at that address and therefore I am satisfied that service of the claim, evidence, and the notice of hearing for today’s hearing have been served at an address where the tenant now lives.

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 landlord completed a final inspection of the property on the28 December 2023. The inspection shows that the tenant had moved most of her belongings out of the property and had made some attempt at cleaning. However, the premises were not left in reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenant did not remove all of her belongings from the property and some rubbish was left behind which the landlord had to remove.
The landlord claimed $450 plus GST for cleaning. The narration on the invoice records a ‘deep clean’ and has an itemised account of the cleaning that was done. I do not consider that a deep clean was necessary to bring the property up to a reasonable standard, and so I therefore award the landlord $300 plus GST for cleaning.
I consider the rubbish cost of $500 plus GST reasonable and award that amount.
The carpet was heavily stained and needed to be cleaned.
The shower strainer was missing at the end of the tenancy and the landlord had to replace that.
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: a. Broken windows b. Broken doors x 2 c. Locks on doors broken. d. Graffiti on outside fence. e. Bathroom mirror broken. f. Broken guttering and downpipe.
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. Claims that have not been proven.
The landlord claimed the cost of repainting the deck. The paint on the deck is worn. It is as a result of fair wear and tear and the tenant is not responsible for that.
The landlord claimed that the cost of repairing sliders on the shower doors. This is a maintenance item and therefore the tenant is not liable. Name suppression and filing fee.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant them name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952874 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 29 Aeronautic Road, Takanini, Takanini

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952874 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 29 Aeronautic Road, Takanini, Takanini

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

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

Frequently asked questions