What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959395?

The tribunal order states: Siosiana Lotoaatu must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $8,964.07

How much money was awarded in case 4959395?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959395?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10991404-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959395?

The tribunal order states: Siosiana Lotoaatu must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $8,964.07

How much money was awarded in case 4959395?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959395?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10991404-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

189 Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959395 — Property damage

Order

Siosiana Lotoaatu must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $8,964.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damages following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also seeks reimbursement of the filing fee.
This is the fourth order made in respect of this tenancy. The previous orders are: a. Mediator’s order (4325072) dated 27 January 2022 ordering the tenant to pay a total debt of $ $2326.45, being rent arrears of $1645.71 and water rates of $680.74. b. Tribunal order (4503936) dated 21 April 2023 for conditional termination and ordering the tenant to pay a total debt of $2,738.46, being rent arrears of $1,332.86 to 21 April 2023, water rates of $1,385.16 and the filing fee of $20.44. c. Tribunal order (4840463) dated 23 May 2024 for termination, refund of the bond ($2,400.00) to the landlord and ordering the tenant to pay the remaining debt of $3,852.45, being the remaining water rates and filing fee after refund of the bond.
This order includes the debt previously ordered and is a record of all outstanding debt the tenant must pay in relation to this tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The termination order dated 23 May 2024 ordered termination as at 11:59pm on 27 May 2024, however the tenant did not vacate and the landlord’s required the bailiff to attend the property on 6 June 2024 to remove the tenants.
Accordingly, the tenancy ended on 6 June 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Since the Tribunal’s order 4840463 was made on 23 May 2024, two additional water rates bills had been received by the landlord. Those invoices are dated 23 May 2024 and 20 June 2024.
The tenant is liable for the consumption charges up until they vacated the tenancy on 6 June 2024. The total additional amount owed in water rates, calculated on an average daily rate to 6 June 2024, is $257.12.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish
The landlords needed to hire two skip bins to take away the large amount of rubbish and furniture left behind by the tenants.
The landlords have provided evidence of the tidy state of the interior and exterior at the start of the tenancy (move in photos 14 December 2020) and the furniture, clothing, personal items and rubbish left at the end of the tenancy (move out photos 6 June 2024).
The property manager gave evidence that on 7 June 2024 she called the tenants and asked if they were going to come and collect their belongings. She says the tenants said they would not and that she could remove the items.
I make an order for the cost of the two skip bins as sought.
The landlords sought a total of $1,500 (+GST) in labour costs related to removing the furniture and rubbish. The landlord said the work was carried out over approximately three weeks but they were unable to say how many days or hours it took.
The invoice from the landlord’s contractor simply lists one item of $1,500 for “remove rubbish.” While I accept there was a large amount of material left behind by the tenant, without more evidence, I do not consider $1,500 a reasonable charge for removal. I have adjusted the award to $1,000 (+GST), being a total of $1,150.00. Lawns
The landlords seek $80.00 (+GST) for the cost of mowing the lawns. The landlords have provided evidence the lawns were in a tidy state at the start of the tenancy (move in photos 14 December 2020) and that they were left untidy at the end of the tenancy (move out photos 6 June 2024).
The cost of lawn mowing is reasonable. The amount ordered is proved. Cleaning
The landlords seek $500 (+GST) for cleaning the interior of the house after the rubbish was removed. The landlords have provided evidence of the clean state of the house at the start of the tenancy (move in photos 14 December 2020) and that that it was left unclean at the end of the tenancy (move out photos 6 June 2024).
I award the full amount for the cleaning of the interior house, being $500 (+GST), a total of $575.00. The premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy state. Keys
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord required a locksmith to change the front and back door keys. I award the landlord’s the cost of the locksmith.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken window in the exterior door from the lounge; b. One broken window frame and two broken glass panes in bedroom 3; c. Grease and/or fire damaged rangehood; d. Broken dishwasher.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlords have provided evidence of the state of those items at the start of the tenancy (move in photos 14 December 2020) and the state of those items at the end of the tenancy (move out photos 6 June 2024).
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The items were all in good working condition at the start of the tenancy, and the replacement items were a reasonable price. I also award the landlord the labour costs for the installation of the rangehood and dishwasher.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Should the tenants reimburse the filing fee?

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959395 — Property damage at 189 Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959395 — Property damage at 189 Waimumu Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants reimburse the filing fee?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants reimburse the filing fee?

Property management