How much money was awarded in case 4958994?

Bed Slats: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Heat-Pump Remote: $68.64 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $18.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $251.63 awarded to landlord; Sand And Polish Dog Scratches: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: 70l Bin: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedside Lamp: $72.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet insuranc…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: mattress protec…: $84.90 awarded to landlord; TV Remote: $22.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4958994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4958994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524251-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4958994?

Bed Slats: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Heat-Pump Remote: $68.64 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $18.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $251.63 awarded to landlord; Sand And Polish Dog Scratches: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: 70l Bin: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedside Lamp: $72.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet insuranc…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: mattress protec…: $84.90 awarded to landlord; TV Remote: $22.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4958994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4958994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524251-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

372 Pine Valley Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0992 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4958994 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4958994?

The tribunal order states: Rafaella Stanguerlin and Aiden Kiff must pay Hollie Joss Property Management

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4958994 — net $15.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$251.63	Lock/key replacement
Heat-pump remote	$68.64	Heat-pump remote
TV remote	$22.98	TV remote
Replace furnishings: mattress protector	$84.90	Replace furnishings: mattress protector
Replace furnishings: 70l bin	$25.00	Replace furnishings: 70l bin
Pest control: flea bombs	$18.00	Pest control: flea bombs
Bed slats	$120.00	Bed slats
Repairs: Sand and polish dog scratches	$60.00	Repairs: Sand and polish dog scratches
Replace furnishings: bedside lamp	$72.00	Replace furnishings: bedside lamp
Cleaning: mattress	$80.00	Cleaning: mattress
Replace furnishings: carpet insurance	$250.00	Replace furnishings: carpet insurance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15.86

Rafaella Stanguerlin and Aiden Kiff must pay Hollie Joss Property Management Limited As Agent For Jackie Blandford $15.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,414.29 (5275218-003) to Hollie Joss Property Management Limited As Agent For Jackie Blandford immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the calls made to them at the scheduled time on the two numbers provided to the Tribunal.

This application was originally set down for a hearing on 30 October 2024. On that day the hearing was adjourned for the landlord to serve the hearing documentation on the tenant pursuant to section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) due to the application being filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy.

Today the landlord advised that following the first hearing, Ms Joss went to 1/32 Marellen Drive Whangaparaoa where she believed the respondents were currently living. At that address she saw Mr Kiff’s work vehicle, (a truck sign- written with Mr Kiff’s business details) and she spoke to a person who identified herself as Mr Kiff’s mother. Mr Kiff’s mother confirmed that the two respondents were living at this address. Ms Joss then hand-delivered the application documents to Mr Kiff’s mother.

I can see from my records that on 11 November 2024, Tenancy Services updated their records to include the respondents’ new physical address.

Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenant has not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming $330.00 for deep- cleaning costs and has provided photographs and an invoice in support.

From the photographs I can see the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. That is not to say they were left perfect or that no further cleaning was required. On close inspection there are clearly areas that could have been cleaned better. However, it is not unusual for responsible landlords to undertake a deep clean between tenancies. That is a landlord’s prerogative and not the tenant’s responsibility. Despite the landlord’s oral submissions and supporting information, this claim is not proved and I decline to award cleaning costs.

The landlord claimed $60.00 for gardening costs. From the photographs provided I am satisfied that the gardens were also left reasonably tidy, and I do not find this claim proved.

The landlord claimed $350.00 for steam-cleaning the carpets, $80.00 for steam- cleaning a stained mattress, and $18.00 for flea-bombing the premises. Photographs provided show that the carpets and mattress were more stained at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning. These claims are proved.

The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and one lock was broken.

The following chattels were also missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Two garage remote controllers, b. One television remote controller, c. A mattress protector, d. A large bin, e. A bedside lamp, f. Slats for a bed.

The landlord provided invoices in support of these claims.

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.

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 claimed that the carpets could not be satisfactorily cleaned and so made an insurance claim for their replacement. The landlord is claiming $500.00 insurance-excess for the carpets.

Despite the staining, which I would describe as no more than moderate (some staining is evident from the beginning of the tenancy) I consider the carpets to still be more than adequate for a rental property of this style. I do accept that the landlord has suffered some loss and should be compensated for that. However, the landlord stated the carpets are more than eight years old. In a rental setting they have probably reached the end of their expected life-span. I consider the loss to the landlord to be minimal and reasonably compensated by an award of $250.00.

The landlord claimed compensation for a repair to a small hole in the deck. When I look at the photographs, I see the deck is already old and showing signs of deterioration. I am not persuaded it would be reasonable to hold the tenant responsible for the hole appearing in the deck. This claim is not proved.

The landlord produced photographs that show dog scratches on an interior wall. The landlord is claiming $60.00 for preparing and repairing this damage. Photographs were produced in support. This claim is 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.

Because Hollie Joss Property Management Limited As Agent For Jackie Blandford has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4958994 — net $15.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$251.63	Lock/key replacement
Heat-pump remote	$68.64	Heat-pump remote
TV remote	$22.98	TV remote
Replace furnishings: mattress protector	$84.90	Replace furnishings: mattress protector
Replace furnishings: 70l bin	$25.00	Replace furnishings: 70l bin
Pest control: flea bombs	$18.00	Pest control: flea bombs
Bed slats	$120.00	Bed slats
Repairs: Sand and polish dog scratches	$60.00	Repairs: Sand and polish dog scratches
Replace furnishings: bedside lamp	$72.00	Replace furnishings: bedside lamp
Cleaning: mattress	$80.00	Cleaning: mattress
Replace furnishings: carpet insurance	$250.00	Replace furnishings: carpet insurance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15.86

Order

Rafaella Stanguerlin and Aiden Kiff must pay Hollie Joss Property Management Limited As Agent For Jackie Blandford $15.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,414.29 (5275218-003) to Hollie Joss Property Management Limited As Agent For Jackie Blandford immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the calls made to them at the scheduled time on the two numbers provided to the Tribunal.
This application was originally set down for a hearing on 30 October 2024. On that day the hearing was adjourned for the landlord to serve the hearing documentation on the tenant pursuant to section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) due to the application being filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy.
Today the landlord advised that following the first hearing, Ms Joss went to 1/32 Marellen Drive Whangaparaoa where she believed the respondents were currently living. At that address she saw Mr Kiff’s work vehicle, (a truck sign- written with Mr Kiff’s business details) and she spoke to a person who identified herself as Mr Kiff’s mother. Mr Kiff’s mother confirmed that the two respondents were living at this address. Ms Joss then hand-delivered the application documents to Mr Kiff’s mother.
I can see from my records that on 11 November 2024, Tenancy Services updated their records to include the respondents’ new physical address.
Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenant has not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord is claiming $330.00 for deep- cleaning costs and has provided photographs and an invoice in support.
From the photographs I can see the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. That is not to say they were left perfect or that no further cleaning was required. On close inspection there are clearly areas that could have been cleaned better. However, it is not unusual for responsible landlords to undertake a deep clean between tenancies. That is a landlord’s prerogative and not the tenant’s responsibility. Despite the landlord’s oral submissions and supporting information, this claim is not proved and I decline to award cleaning costs.
The landlord claimed $60.00 for gardening costs. From the photographs provided I am satisfied that the gardens were also left reasonably tidy, and I do not find this claim proved.
The landlord claimed $350.00 for steam-cleaning the carpets, $80.00 for steam- cleaning a stained mattress, and $18.00 for flea-bombing the premises. Photographs provided show that the carpets and mattress were more stained at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning. These claims are proved.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and one lock was broken.
The following chattels were also missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Two garage remote controllers, b. One television remote controller, c. A mattress protector, d. A large bin, e. A bedside lamp, f. Slats for a bed.
The landlord provided invoices in support of these claims.
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.
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 claimed that the carpets could not be satisfactorily cleaned and so made an insurance claim for their replacement. The landlord is claiming $500.00 insurance-excess for the carpets.
Despite the staining, which I would describe as no more than moderate (some staining is evident from the beginning of the tenancy) I consider the carpets to still be more than adequate for a rental property of this style. I do accept that the landlord has suffered some loss and should be compensated for that. However, the landlord stated the carpets are more than eight years old. In a rental setting they have probably reached the end of their expected life-span. I consider the loss to the landlord to be minimal and reasonably compensated by an award of $250.00.
The landlord claimed compensation for a repair to a small hole in the deck. When I look at the photographs, I see the deck is already old and showing signs of deterioration. I am not persuaded it would be reasonable to hold the tenant responsible for the hole appearing in the deck. This claim is not proved.
The landlord produced photographs that show dog scratches on an interior wall. The landlord is claiming $60.00 for preparing and repairing this damage. Photographs were produced in support. This claim is 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.
Because Hollie Joss Property Management Limited As Agent For Jackie Blandford has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4958994 — Cleanliness at 372 Pine Valley Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0992

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4958994 — Cleanliness at 372 Pine Valley Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0992

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions