What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4957387?

The tribunal order states: Aisong Zhu must pay JRL Rental Investment Limited $1,925.05 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4957387?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $977.14 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Pantry Door: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Switch: $248.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957387?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957387?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11306623-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4957387?

The tribunal order states: Aisong Zhu must pay JRL Rental Investment Limited $1,925.05 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4957387?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $977.14 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Pantry Door: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Switch: $248.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957387?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957387?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11306623-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11D Mandarin Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4957387 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4957387 — net $1,925.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 August 2024	$977.14	Rent arrears to 8 August 2024
Repairs: pantry door	$402.50	Repairs: pantry door
Repairs: waste disposal switch	$248.41	Repairs: waste disposal switch
Repairs: bedroom door	$120.00	Repairs: bedroom door
Repairs: walls	$150.00	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,925.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,925.05

Order

Aisong Zhu must pay JRL Rental Investment Limited $1,925.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a periodic tenancy. On 11 July 2024, the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant recorded the end date of the tenancy as 19 July 2024. At the hearing, the tenant accepted that they were required to give the landlord 28 days’ notice. See section 51(2B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Both parties agreed that the end date of the tenancy was 8 August 2024.
The landlord provided a rent summary, which proves that rent arrears up to 8 August 2024 were $977.14. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for this amount.

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) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation of $500.00 for cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for this amount.
Both parties submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord highlighted the presence of handprints on the kitchen cupboards and stair handrail. The landlord also highlighted the presence of dust on electrical switches, skirting and some mould/grime in the edges of the shower box.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord and tenant, I am satisfied the tenant left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. All the tenant’s belongings were removed, and the property appears to have been vacuumed, mopped and thoroughly cleaned. I consider the matters highlighted by the landlord to be minor. A tenant does not need to leave a property in an immaculate condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy state. I am satisfied the tenant did this.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $500.00 for cleaning is dismissed.

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.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Swollen pantry door b. Broken waste disposal switch c. Cracked/bubbling paint on bedroom windowsill d. Scratch and marks to bedroom doors e. Scratches and marks on the walls
I deal with each issue in turn below. Swollen pantry door
The pantry door sits atop the kitchen bench and is located next to the sink on the right-hand side. It is a folding door. The landlord claims the tenant damaged the pantry door by causing excessive amounts of water to come into contact with it. The landlord claims this resulted in the door swelling and not being able to close properly. The landlord gave evidence that they own five other properties with a similar set up and have not experienced this problem. The landlord also gave evidence that they were unable to have the door fixed under warranty from the kitchen supplier, Art Deco Interior Ltd, who advised that the damage was due to the cupboard being soaked in water. The landlord claims that the damage has been sustained by careless use of the sink by the tenant.
The landlord has replaced the pantry door at a cost of $402.50 and provided an invoice for this amount.
The tenant accepts that the door is swollen and cannot close properly. The tenant claims that the sink is close to the pantry door, and inevitably some water has splashed onto the door during the tenancy. The tenant denies that they ever used the sink in an unreasonable manner. The tenant claims the damage is the result of the accumulation of small amounts of water splashing onto the door over a long period of time. The tenant lived in the property from 18 March 2023 – 20 July 2024, which is a period of 16 months.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the pantry door was likely damaged as a result of careless use of the sink by the tenant. There is a waste disposal switch located between the sink and pantry door. The landlord also seeks compensation to fix this and submitted an invoice, which notes: “...air switch was faulty due to large amount of water in there.”
This statement supports the landlord’s claim that the tenant used the sink in such a way as to cause excessive amounts of water to be splashed onto the kitchen counter. I accept the landlord’s submission that the proximity between the sink and pantry door means that the pantry door should reasonably have been closed when washing dishes and this was most likely not the case. I consider the damage to the pantry door to be the result of careless use of the sink by the tenant, rather than intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $402.50 to replace the pantry door is granted in full. Broken waste disposal switch
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the wate disposal switch. The landlord gave evidence that they were contacted by their cleaners on either 20 or 21 July 2024 who advised that the switch was not working. The landlord claims that their request to have the switch repaired under warranty was declined because the damage was found to be the result of excessive water. The landlord submitted an invoice from Laser Plumbing East Tamaki for $248.41, which confirmed the same.
The tenant gave evidence that the waste disposal switch worked at the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the waste disposal switch was most likely damaged as a result of careless use of the sink by the tenant during the tenancy. The invoice provided by Laser Plumbing East Tamaki confirms that the air switch was damaged as a result of the presence of a large amount of water. It states: “...Investigated issue with waste disposal. Found blades were jammed and air switch was faulty due to large amount of water in there. Advised this issue is not covered by warranty. Was given the go ahead to replace the air switch.”
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $248.41 to replace the broken waste disposal switch is granted in full. Cracked/bubbling paint on windowsill
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for cracked/bubbling paint on the windowsill in the master bedroom. The landlord submitted a photograph of the windowsill, which shows a very small crack/bubbling of the paint in one corner. The landlord claims the damage is the result of the tenant not closing the window when it rains.
The tenant gave evidence the damage is the result of condensation accumulating on the windows when closed overnight. The tenant claims they regularly wiped the windows and opened them during the day to assist with ventilation, but this did not help with the condensation.
The landlord has not convinced me that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The cracked/bubbling paint is miniscule. This tenancy was 16 months long. It is not uncommon for condensation to accumulate on windows when closed overnight and I accept the tenant’s evidence that this was most likely the cause of the damage. I am not convinced that the damage is the result of an intentional or careless act by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the windowsill is dismissed. Scratch and marks to bedroom door
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage to two bedroom doors. The landlord submitted a photograph labelled “South bedroom door”, which shows a long horizontal scratch on the door. The landlord also highlighted the presence of two small dots approximately 3mm – 5mm in size.
The landlord submitted a photograph labelled “North bedroom door” which shows one small dot approximately 3mm – 5mm in size.
The tenant accepts that the scratch to the South bedroom door occurred during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that the bedroom door opens up to the same side of the wall as the wardrobe door. The tenant claims the scratch most likely occurred when the tenant left the wardrobe doors open and later opened the main bedroom door, causing the two doors to connect.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for causing the scratch to the South bedroom door. I consider the damage to be careless. In respect of the two dots referred to by the landlord on the South bedroom door and one dot on the North bedroom door, I consider this to be fair wear and tear. The dots are miniscule and this tenancy lasted a period of 16 months. I am not convinced that the dots are the result of an intentional or careless act on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $461.04 for repair work. This invoice covers repairs undertaken in respect of the window, two-bedroom doors and the walls. The invoice does not breakdown how much time was spent on each repair task or the hourly rate. The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the scratch to the South bedroom door is granted for a total of $120.00. I consider this sum reasonably reflects the damage sustained. Scratches and marks on the walls
The landlord submitted photographs which show some damage sustained to the walls. This includes a small scribble on the wall, and scratches and abrasions to other walls. The tenant accepts that the damage occurred during the tenancy but cannot remember how. The scratches and marks are not large, but I am satisfied that they are more than fair wear and tear. In respect of some of the marks, small amounts of paint have been removed and the jib has been damaged.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $461.04 for a range of repair work. This invoice covers repairs undertaken in respect of the windowsill, bedroom doors and walls. The invoice does not breakdown how much time was spent on each repair task or the hourly rate. The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the walls is granted for a total of $150.00. I consider this sum reasonably reflects the extend of the damage.
The amounts ordered above 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. Filing fee
Because JRL Rental Investment Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4957387 — net $1,925.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 August 2024	$977.14	Rent arrears to 8 August 2024
Repairs: pantry door	$402.50	Repairs: pantry door
Repairs: waste disposal switch	$248.41	Repairs: waste disposal switch
Repairs: bedroom door	$120.00	Repairs: bedroom door
Repairs: walls	$150.00	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,925.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,925.05

Order

Aisong Zhu must pay JRL Rental Investment Limited $1,925.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a periodic tenancy. On 11 July 2024, the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant recorded the end date of the tenancy as 19 July 2024. At the hearing, the tenant accepted that they were required to give the landlord 28 days’ notice. See section 51(2B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Both parties agreed that the end date of the tenancy was 8 August 2024.
The landlord provided a rent summary, which proves that rent arrears up to 8 August 2024 were $977.14. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for this amount.

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) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation of $500.00 for cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for this amount.
Both parties submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord highlighted the presence of handprints on the kitchen cupboards and stair handrail. The landlord also highlighted the presence of dust on electrical switches, skirting and some mould/grime in the edges of the shower box.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord and tenant, I am satisfied the tenant left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. All the tenant’s belongings were removed, and the property appears to have been vacuumed, mopped and thoroughly cleaned. I consider the matters highlighted by the landlord to be minor. A tenant does not need to leave a property in an immaculate condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy state. I am satisfied the tenant did this.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $500.00 for cleaning is dismissed.

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.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Swollen pantry door b. Broken waste disposal switch c. Cracked/bubbling paint on bedroom windowsill d. Scratch and marks to bedroom doors e. Scratches and marks on the walls
I deal with each issue in turn below. Swollen pantry door
The pantry door sits atop the kitchen bench and is located next to the sink on the right-hand side. It is a folding door. The landlord claims the tenant damaged the pantry door by causing excessive amounts of water to come into contact with it. The landlord claims this resulted in the door swelling and not being able to close properly. The landlord gave evidence that they own five other properties with a similar set up and have not experienced this problem. The landlord also gave evidence that they were unable to have the door fixed under warranty from the kitchen supplier, Art Deco Interior Ltd, who advised that the damage was due to the cupboard being soaked in water. The landlord claims that the damage has been sustained by careless use of the sink by the tenant.
The landlord has replaced the pantry door at a cost of $402.50 and provided an invoice for this amount.
The tenant accepts that the door is swollen and cannot close properly. The tenant claims that the sink is close to the pantry door, and inevitably some water has splashed onto the door during the tenancy. The tenant denies that they ever used the sink in an unreasonable manner. The tenant claims the damage is the result of the accumulation of small amounts of water splashing onto the door over a long period of time. The tenant lived in the property from 18 March 2023 – 20 July 2024, which is a period of 16 months.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the pantry door was likely damaged as a result of careless use of the sink by the tenant. There is a waste disposal switch located between the sink and pantry door. The landlord also seeks compensation to fix this and submitted an invoice, which notes: “...air switch was faulty due to large amount of water in there.”
This statement supports the landlord’s claim that the tenant used the sink in such a way as to cause excessive amounts of water to be splashed onto the kitchen counter. I accept the landlord’s submission that the proximity between the sink and pantry door means that the pantry door should reasonably have been closed when washing dishes and this was most likely not the case. I consider the damage to the pantry door to be the result of careless use of the sink by the tenant, rather than intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $402.50 to replace the pantry door is granted in full. Broken waste disposal switch
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the wate disposal switch. The landlord gave evidence that they were contacted by their cleaners on either 20 or 21 July 2024 who advised that the switch was not working. The landlord claims that their request to have the switch repaired under warranty was declined because the damage was found to be the result of excessive water. The landlord submitted an invoice from Laser Plumbing East Tamaki for $248.41, which confirmed the same.
The tenant gave evidence that the waste disposal switch worked at the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the waste disposal switch was most likely damaged as a result of careless use of the sink by the tenant during the tenancy. The invoice provided by Laser Plumbing East Tamaki confirms that the air switch was damaged as a result of the presence of a large amount of water. It states: “...Investigated issue with waste disposal. Found blades were jammed and air switch was faulty due to large amount of water in there. Advised this issue is not covered by warranty. Was given the go ahead to replace the air switch.”
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $248.41 to replace the broken waste disposal switch is granted in full. Cracked/bubbling paint on windowsill
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for cracked/bubbling paint on the windowsill in the master bedroom. The landlord submitted a photograph of the windowsill, which shows a very small crack/bubbling of the paint in one corner. The landlord claims the damage is the result of the tenant not closing the window when it rains.
The tenant gave evidence the damage is the result of condensation accumulating on the windows when closed overnight. The tenant claims they regularly wiped the windows and opened them during the day to assist with ventilation, but this did not help with the condensation.
The landlord has not convinced me that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The cracked/bubbling paint is miniscule. This tenancy was 16 months long. It is not uncommon for condensation to accumulate on windows when closed overnight and I accept the tenant’s evidence that this was most likely the cause of the damage. I am not convinced that the damage is the result of an intentional or careless act by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the windowsill is dismissed. Scratch and marks to bedroom door
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage to two bedroom doors. The landlord submitted a photograph labelled “South bedroom door”, which shows a long horizontal scratch on the door. The landlord also highlighted the presence of two small dots approximately 3mm – 5mm in size.
The landlord submitted a photograph labelled “North bedroom door” which shows one small dot approximately 3mm – 5mm in size.
The tenant accepts that the scratch to the South bedroom door occurred during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that the bedroom door opens up to the same side of the wall as the wardrobe door. The tenant claims the scratch most likely occurred when the tenant left the wardrobe doors open and later opened the main bedroom door, causing the two doors to connect.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for causing the scratch to the South bedroom door. I consider the damage to be careless. In respect of the two dots referred to by the landlord on the South bedroom door and one dot on the North bedroom door, I consider this to be fair wear and tear. The dots are miniscule and this tenancy lasted a period of 16 months. I am not convinced that the dots are the result of an intentional or careless act on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $461.04 for repair work. This invoice covers repairs undertaken in respect of the window, two-bedroom doors and the walls. The invoice does not breakdown how much time was spent on each repair task or the hourly rate. The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the scratch to the South bedroom door is granted for a total of $120.00. I consider this sum reasonably reflects the damage sustained. Scratches and marks on the walls
The landlord submitted photographs which show some damage sustained to the walls. This includes a small scribble on the wall, and scratches and abrasions to other walls. The tenant accepts that the damage occurred during the tenancy but cannot remember how. The scratches and marks are not large, but I am satisfied that they are more than fair wear and tear. In respect of some of the marks, small amounts of paint have been removed and the jib has been damaged.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $461.04 for a range of repair work. This invoice covers repairs undertaken in respect of the windowsill, bedroom doors and walls. The invoice does not breakdown how much time was spent on each repair task or the hourly rate. The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the walls is granted for a total of $150.00. I consider this sum reasonably reflects the extend of the damage.
The amounts ordered above 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. Filing fee
Because JRL Rental Investment Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957387 — Rent arrears at 11D Mandarin Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957387 — Rent arrears at 11D Mandarin Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions