What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955313 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 4955313?

Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,990.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Drawer: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11400030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955313 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 4955313?

Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,990.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Drawer: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11400030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955313 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955313 — Rent arrears | 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 4955313 — net $7,107.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.8.2024	$7,990.00	Rent arrears to 20.8.2024
Repairs: kitchen drawer	$80.00	Repairs: kitchen drawer
Cleaning: & rubbish removal	$200.00	Cleaning: & rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,107.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,107.00

Claims and awards for application 4955313 — net $7,107.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20.8.2024

Amount: $7,990.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20.8.2024

Repairs: kitchen drawer

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: kitchen drawer

Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $7,107.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $7,107.00

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Service is deemed to have been effected on the tenant, pursuant to section 91B(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rebecca Reid must pay [The landlord/s] $7,107.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,190.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, Ms Reid, the last three digits being 621, was called multiple times without response. [The property manager/s] also provided a phone number for the tenant’s partner, who had also lived at the property, the last three digits being 083, which was also called without response. Service
The issue of service was discussed at the start of the hearing. The application was filed within 2 months of the termination of the tenancy. Further to section 91A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the application is deemed to have been served on the tenant if sent by post to the tenant at the tenancy address or another address for service given by the tenant to the landlord, or if delivered to the premises of any address for service provided, or served on the tenant personally or emailed to the tenant to an email given by the tenant as an address for service.
[The property manager/s] confirmed the parties did not have a written Tenancy Agreement, only verbal, and so there is no written Tenancy Agreement which provides an email address for service for the tenant.
The application was not posted to the tenancy address or to any address provided by the tenant as an address for service.
The application was emailed to the tenant at a more recent email address which was used when the tenant last emailed the landlord on 17 October 2024, well after the end of the tenancy, and was also sent by SMS to the phone number for the tenant.
Service of the application does not meet the requirements of section 91A(1) RTA.
Section 91B(2)(b) RTA provides that, if the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice in accordance with the Act, where it has not been served in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal may direct that the notice or other document be treated as served on the party if steps have already been taken that have brought, or are likely to bring, the notice or other document to the attention of the party.
After discussion with [The property manager/s] of the steps he has taken to locate the tenant, which include multiple calls to the tenant, emails to the tenant, calls to the tenant’s partner and responding to the tenant’s email of October 2024, all without success, I was satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made by the landlord to locate the tenant for service. As the tenant emailed the landlord on 17 October 2024 from her newer email, attempting to discuss the rent arrears, after the end of the tenancy, and this newer email of the tenant was used to serve her with the application and Notice of hearing, I was satisfied that steps had already been taken that were likely to have brought the application to the tenant’s attention and directed that service was effected on the tenant.
Given this, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2024, according to the landlord. The landlord said the tenant gave notice that she was leaving the property on 12 August 2024 but did not provide the landlord with 28 days’ notice, as required. He could not recall the date the tenant gave this notice. As such, the landlord said he deemed the tenancy ended on 20 August 2024, which was the day before new tenants moved into the property on 21 August 2024. The tenant did not attend the hearing or provide any information prior to the hearing contradicting the date for the end of the tenancy, which was included in the landlord’s rent summary provided, and so it is likely the tenancy ended on 20 August 2024 based on the evidence available. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 20 August 2024, the end of the tenancy, is $7,990.00.

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. Cleaning/Rubbish removal
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report or an Outgoing Inspection Report. The landlord provided a handful of photographs which they said reflected the property’s condition at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. There were no dates provided as to when these photographs were taken.
The photographs provided by the landlord were small and some were unclear in detail. The move in photographs were more general in nature, and did not depict the same items as in the move out photographs. The photographs which showed the property’s condition at the end of the tenancy indicated one rubbish bag was left at the property (the same bag shown in 2 photographs, according to the landlord), which evidently had something inside it, some bee hives and a hose that were left in the garage and some wood planks left outside at the property. It was difficult to see any other obvious rubbish left at the property from the photographs.
As regards cleaning, the landlord said the oven was not cleaned, there was a dirty door, the floor was not swept, the toilet was not cleaned, and the carpet needed cleaning. From the photographs provided by the landlord, it was not possible to clearly see the condition of the oven, nor the floor, nor the carpet either at the start or the end of the tenancy. There were photographs of grubby marks along the side of one door and a toilet that needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy. As such I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove anything required cleaning, apart from the grubby marks on the side of one door and the toilet.
The landlord provided an invoice for $736.00 dated 31 August 2024 from a commercial cleaning company, which they said was for rubbish removal, cleaning the side garage and deep cleaning the carpet. On the invoice, across from the rubbish removal line item was a charge of $10.00, across from the cleaning the side garage line item was a charge for $55.00. There was no line item charge for deep cleaning the carpet so it was difficult to ascertain how much of this total invoice was attributable to each task. [The property manager/s] did not know this either. Further complicating this was that the invoice stated that this commercial cleaning was done on 29 August 2024, which was around 8 days after the new tenants moved into the property on 21 August 2024. It is difficult then for the landlord to prove that any work done after new tenants move into the property is attributable solely to the actions of the former tenant who is the subject of this application. Thus, I do not rely on this cleaning invoice, for work completed after a new tenancy began at the property, and which is very confusing as to charges anyway.
Whilst the landlord did not provide dates upon which the move out photographs were taken, as the property appeared to be empty in those photographs, I accept that those photographs were likely taken at the end of the tenancy. Given what I have reflected above that is visible clearly in those photographs, namely rubbish removal of some bee hives, a hose, some wooden planks and one rubbish bag, I find a reasonable amount to remove these proven items of rubbish left at the property to be $150.00.
Given the only cleaning issues that I find to be clear from the photographs of having to clean grubby marks on a door and cleaning the toilet, I find a reasonable amount to clean these items to be $50.00.
Therefore, I award the landlord a total of $200.00 for rubbish removal and cleaning. Locks
The landlord said the tenant did not return multiple keys to various doors around the property.
The landlord made the following claims for locks to be replaced in multiple locations at the property, which totalled $1,114.46: a. Locks for the front door and the sliding door of the porch enclosing the front door (2 locks) - $534.46. b. Lock for the garage door - $120.00. c. 2 back door locks – one simple and one complicated, one above the other lock on the back door - $340.00. d. Bedroom door lock -$120.00. The landlord said this bedroom door was locked as it had access to the front porch through this door.
There was only one photograph in the end of tenancy photographs of a door showing a doorknob with a hole beside it, which the landlord said showed a new lock was needed there. Other door photographs at the end of the tenancy only showed where the doors were at the property but they did not show why their locks had to be replaced. Further, there were no photographs of the door locks at the start of the tenancy, nor any inspection reports indicating missing keys, nor any photographs of keys provided at the start of the tenancy, as is common in many tenancies, nor copies of any communication with the tenant about this, to provide any additional supporting evidence that all the locks claimed related to keys provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy but not returned by her at the end of the tenancy. I find it very unusual that a tenant would be provided with at least 6 different keys for various locks in one rented property. Given the insufficient additional supporting evidence for this claim for $1,114.46 for 6 locks replacements, I must dismiss this claim. Automatic doors
The landlord initially claimed $834.02 to repair automatic doors in the garage. Once discussion began about this claim, the landlord withdrew this claim, indicating they ended up not going with the amount quoted, which they had initially claimed. Garage door opener
The landlord claimed $180.00 for a garage door opener replacement, which they said was missing at the end of the tenancy. There was no evidence provided to support this claim at all, not even an invoice in the amount of $180.00 which the landlord claimed, nor any inspection report indicating this was missing. As such, I dismiss this claim.
The amounts ordered above 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 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 said the tenant damaged a kitchen drawer. The property manager said he did a final inspection at the end of the tenancy and, when he went to open the kitchen drawer, it came out already broken. The landlord provided a photograph of a kitchen drawer where one side of it was broken off the drawer. The landlord said the drawer was repaired by a handyman for $80.00 and provided an invoice to this effect. Given the nature of the broken kitchen drawer in the photograph, shown in context of the kitchen, I accept that the drawer likely broke during the tenancy and that it was intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost less any depreciation. The cap in s. 49B RTA does not apply here.
As the kitchen drawer was only repaired and not replaced by the landlord, I do not account for depreciation and award the landlord the repair cost of $80.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,190.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

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 4955313 — net $7,107.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.8.2024	$7,990.00	Rent arrears to 20.8.2024
Repairs: kitchen drawer	$80.00	Repairs: kitchen drawer
Cleaning: & rubbish removal	$200.00	Cleaning: & rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,107.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,107.00

Claims and awards for application 4955313 — net $7,107.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20.8.2024

Amount: $7,990.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20.8.2024

Repairs: kitchen drawer

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: kitchen drawer

Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $7,107.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $7,107.00

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Service is deemed to have been effected on the tenant, pursuant to section 91B(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rebecca Reid must pay [The landlord/s] $7,107.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,190.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, Ms Reid, the last three digits being 621, was called multiple times without response. [The property manager/s] also provided a phone number for the tenant’s partner, who had also lived at the property, the last three digits being 083, which was also called without response. Service
The issue of service was discussed at the start of the hearing. The application was filed within 2 months of the termination of the tenancy. Further to section 91A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the application is deemed to have been served on the tenant if sent by post to the tenant at the tenancy address or another address for service given by the tenant to the landlord, or if delivered to the premises of any address for service provided, or served on the tenant personally or emailed to the tenant to an email given by the tenant as an address for service.
[The property manager/s] confirmed the parties did not have a written Tenancy Agreement, only verbal, and so there is no written Tenancy Agreement which provides an email address for service for the tenant.
The application was not posted to the tenancy address or to any address provided by the tenant as an address for service.
The application was emailed to the tenant at a more recent email address which was used when the tenant last emailed the landlord on 17 October 2024, well after the end of the tenancy, and was also sent by SMS to the phone number for the tenant.
Service of the application does not meet the requirements of section 91A(1) RTA.
Section 91B(2)(b) RTA provides that, if the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice in accordance with the Act, where it has not been served in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal may direct that the notice or other document be treated as served on the party if steps have already been taken that have brought, or are likely to bring, the notice or other document to the attention of the party.
After discussion with [The property manager/s] of the steps he has taken to locate the tenant, which include multiple calls to the tenant, emails to the tenant, calls to the tenant’s partner and responding to the tenant’s email of October 2024, all without success, I was satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made by the landlord to locate the tenant for service. As the tenant emailed the landlord on 17 October 2024 from her newer email, attempting to discuss the rent arrears, after the end of the tenancy, and this newer email of the tenant was used to serve her with the application and Notice of hearing, I was satisfied that steps had already been taken that were likely to have brought the application to the tenant’s attention and directed that service was effected on the tenant.
Given this, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2024, according to the landlord. The landlord said the tenant gave notice that she was leaving the property on 12 August 2024 but did not provide the landlord with 28 days’ notice, as required. He could not recall the date the tenant gave this notice. As such, the landlord said he deemed the tenancy ended on 20 August 2024, which was the day before new tenants moved into the property on 21 August 2024. The tenant did not attend the hearing or provide any information prior to the hearing contradicting the date for the end of the tenancy, which was included in the landlord’s rent summary provided, and so it is likely the tenancy ended on 20 August 2024 based on the evidence available. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 20 August 2024, the end of the tenancy, is $7,990.00.

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. Cleaning/Rubbish removal
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report or an Outgoing Inspection Report. The landlord provided a handful of photographs which they said reflected the property’s condition at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. There were no dates provided as to when these photographs were taken.
The photographs provided by the landlord were small and some were unclear in detail. The move in photographs were more general in nature, and did not depict the same items as in the move out photographs. The photographs which showed the property’s condition at the end of the tenancy indicated one rubbish bag was left at the property (the same bag shown in 2 photographs, according to the landlord), which evidently had something inside it, some bee hives and a hose that were left in the garage and some wood planks left outside at the property. It was difficult to see any other obvious rubbish left at the property from the photographs.
As regards cleaning, the landlord said the oven was not cleaned, there was a dirty door, the floor was not swept, the toilet was not cleaned, and the carpet needed cleaning. From the photographs provided by the landlord, it was not possible to clearly see the condition of the oven, nor the floor, nor the carpet either at the start or the end of the tenancy. There were photographs of grubby marks along the side of one door and a toilet that needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy. As such I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove anything required cleaning, apart from the grubby marks on the side of one door and the toilet.
The landlord provided an invoice for $736.00 dated 31 August 2024 from a commercial cleaning company, which they said was for rubbish removal, cleaning the side garage and deep cleaning the carpet. On the invoice, across from the rubbish removal line item was a charge of $10.00, across from the cleaning the side garage line item was a charge for $55.00. There was no line item charge for deep cleaning the carpet so it was difficult to ascertain how much of this total invoice was attributable to each task. [The property manager/s] did not know this either. Further complicating this was that the invoice stated that this commercial cleaning was done on 29 August 2024, which was around 8 days after the new tenants moved into the property on 21 August 2024. It is difficult then for the landlord to prove that any work done after new tenants move into the property is attributable solely to the actions of the former tenant who is the subject of this application. Thus, I do not rely on this cleaning invoice, for work completed after a new tenancy began at the property, and which is very confusing as to charges anyway.
Whilst the landlord did not provide dates upon which the move out photographs were taken, as the property appeared to be empty in those photographs, I accept that those photographs were likely taken at the end of the tenancy. Given what I have reflected above that is visible clearly in those photographs, namely rubbish removal of some bee hives, a hose, some wooden planks and one rubbish bag, I find a reasonable amount to remove these proven items of rubbish left at the property to be $150.00.
Given the only cleaning issues that I find to be clear from the photographs of having to clean grubby marks on a door and cleaning the toilet, I find a reasonable amount to clean these items to be $50.00.
Therefore, I award the landlord a total of $200.00 for rubbish removal and cleaning. Locks
The landlord said the tenant did not return multiple keys to various doors around the property.
The landlord made the following claims for locks to be replaced in multiple locations at the property, which totalled $1,114.46: a. Locks for the front door and the sliding door of the porch enclosing the front door (2 locks) - $534.46. b. Lock for the garage door - $120.00. c. 2 back door locks – one simple and one complicated, one above the other lock on the back door - $340.00. d. Bedroom door lock -$120.00. The landlord said this bedroom door was locked as it had access to the front porch through this door.
There was only one photograph in the end of tenancy photographs of a door showing a doorknob with a hole beside it, which the landlord said showed a new lock was needed there. Other door photographs at the end of the tenancy only showed where the doors were at the property but they did not show why their locks had to be replaced. Further, there were no photographs of the door locks at the start of the tenancy, nor any inspection reports indicating missing keys, nor any photographs of keys provided at the start of the tenancy, as is common in many tenancies, nor copies of any communication with the tenant about this, to provide any additional supporting evidence that all the locks claimed related to keys provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy but not returned by her at the end of the tenancy. I find it very unusual that a tenant would be provided with at least 6 different keys for various locks in one rented property. Given the insufficient additional supporting evidence for this claim for $1,114.46 for 6 locks replacements, I must dismiss this claim. Automatic doors
The landlord initially claimed $834.02 to repair automatic doors in the garage. Once discussion began about this claim, the landlord withdrew this claim, indicating they ended up not going with the amount quoted, which they had initially claimed. Garage door opener
The landlord claimed $180.00 for a garage door opener replacement, which they said was missing at the end of the tenancy. There was no evidence provided to support this claim at all, not even an invoice in the amount of $180.00 which the landlord claimed, nor any inspection report indicating this was missing. As such, I dismiss this claim.
The amounts ordered above 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 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 said the tenant damaged a kitchen drawer. The property manager said he did a final inspection at the end of the tenancy and, when he went to open the kitchen drawer, it came out already broken. The landlord provided a photograph of a kitchen drawer where one side of it was broken off the drawer. The landlord said the drawer was repaired by a handyman for $80.00 and provided an invoice to this effect. Given the nature of the broken kitchen drawer in the photograph, shown in context of the kitchen, I accept that the drawer likely broke during the tenancy and that it was intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost less any depreciation. The cap in s. 49B RTA does not apply here.
As the kitchen drawer was only repaired and not replaced by the landlord, I do not account for depreciation and award the landlord the repair cost of $80.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,190.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955313 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955313 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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