What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962134 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 4962134?

Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pantry Door And Bedroom Door: $1,011.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $218.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962134?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962134 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 4962134?

Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pantry Door And Bedroom Door: $1,011.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $218.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962134?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

105 Wharf Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962134 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962134 — net $2,062.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$440.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$365.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Pantry door and bedroom door	$1,011.13	Repairs: Pantry door and bedroom door
Replace smoke alarms	$218.94	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,062.07
Bond	$2,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,062.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sarah Edwards to pay [The landlord/s] $2,062.07 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,062.07 Sarah Edwards: $637.93

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. In their written application, the landlord stated that they had lost it or could not get a copy. A tenancy agreement usually records a physical or email address for service for the tenant. In the absence of a tenancy agreement, I initially had reservations about whether the Notice of Hearing had been appropriately served on the tenant however, at the hearing the landlord provided a change of tenant form signed by Ms Edwards. This form records an email address for service for Ms Edwards. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Ms Edwards at this email address. I am satisfied that the tenant has been appropriately served with the Notice of Hearing and accompanying documents in accordance with section 91A(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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 sought compensation for the following matters: a. Rubbish removal and cleaning b. Replace smoke alarms (x5) c. Lawns and garden maintenance
I deal with each matter in turn below. Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord provided photographs of the inside of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. No rubbish is present. The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show rubbish, food, miscellaneous household items and furniture were left at the property following the end of the tenancy. The property does not appear to have been cleaned.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not remove all rubbish or leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord seeks compensation of $440.00 for rubbish removal and $365.00 for cleaning. The landlord provided invoices for these amounts. Their claim for compensation is granted in full. Smoke alarms
A tenant must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A RTA and must not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm. See sections 40(1)(ca) and 40(3A)(b) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant removed five smoke alarms which were replaced at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted photographs and an invoice from a contractor. The invoice records that five smoke alarms were purchased for $43.44 (including GST) and one hour of labour was spent attending to the smoke alarms. The contractor’s hourly rate is $175.50 (including GST).
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant removed five smoke alarms and the landlord has had these replaced. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the smoke alarms is granted for a total of $218.94. Lawns and garden
The landlord claims that the lawn and garden was overgrown at the end of the tenancy. In particular, the landlord claims that the back area was severely overgrown. The landlord provided an invoice for $980.00 (including GST) for work carried out on the lawn and garden.
The landlord did not provide photographs of the lawn and garden at the beginning or end of the tenancy. The only photograph shown to me during the hearing was taken after the lawn and garden work was completed.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for lawn and garden maintenance. The amount sought by the landlord is quite significant for this type of work. In the circumstances, I consider that more evidence is required than the oral evidence of the landlord regarding the state of the lawns and garden at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of photographs of the lawn and garden at the end of the tenancy, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the garden and lawns were severely overgrown as a result of neglect by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for compensation for garden and lawn maintenance 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.
The landlord provided an invoice from a contractor for $1,888.97 (including GST). This invoice was for a range of work, including repairing damage and other matters the landlord more appropriately assessed as fair wear and tear and did not seek compensation for.
At the hearing, the damage identified by the landlord was a missing pantry door and a damaged bedroom door. The landlord provided photographs at the hearing of the pantry missing a door and a bedroom door off its hinges. Based on these photographs, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the pantry door and bedroom door were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace and repair the doors is granted for a total of $1,011.13 (including GST). The invoice provided by the landlord recorded a total of 18 hours of labour at a cost of $1,345.50 (including GST). The landlord did not provide any evidence of the time spent by the contractor attending to the replacing and repairing the doors. I have granted the landlord the equivalent of 9 hours of labour ($672.75). I consider this to be a more than reasonable estimate of the time the contractor would most likely have spent attending to replacing and repairing the doors. I have also granted the landlord the expenses recorded in the invoice for the purchase of a new pantry door and hinges ($265.67), and new hinges and a magnetic door catcher ($72.71). This brings the total to $1,011.13 (including GST).
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 [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962134 — net $2,062.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$440.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$365.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Pantry door and bedroom door	$1,011.13	Repairs: Pantry door and bedroom door
Replace smoke alarms	$218.94	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,062.07
Bond	$2,700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,062.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sarah Edwards to pay [The landlord/s] $2,062.07 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,062.07 Sarah Edwards: $637.93

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. In their written application, the landlord stated that they had lost it or could not get a copy. A tenancy agreement usually records a physical or email address for service for the tenant. In the absence of a tenancy agreement, I initially had reservations about whether the Notice of Hearing had been appropriately served on the tenant however, at the hearing the landlord provided a change of tenant form signed by Ms Edwards. This form records an email address for service for Ms Edwards. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Ms Edwards at this email address. I am satisfied that the tenant has been appropriately served with the Notice of Hearing and accompanying documents in accordance with section 91A(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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 sought compensation for the following matters: a. Rubbish removal and cleaning b. Replace smoke alarms (x5) c. Lawns and garden maintenance
I deal with each matter in turn below. Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord provided photographs of the inside of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. No rubbish is present. The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show rubbish, food, miscellaneous household items and furniture were left at the property following the end of the tenancy. The property does not appear to have been cleaned.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not remove all rubbish or leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord seeks compensation of $440.00 for rubbish removal and $365.00 for cleaning. The landlord provided invoices for these amounts. Their claim for compensation is granted in full. Smoke alarms
A tenant must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A RTA and must not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm. See sections 40(1)(ca) and 40(3A)(b) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant removed five smoke alarms which were replaced at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submitted photographs and an invoice from a contractor. The invoice records that five smoke alarms were purchased for $43.44 (including GST) and one hour of labour was spent attending to the smoke alarms. The contractor’s hourly rate is $175.50 (including GST).
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant removed five smoke alarms and the landlord has had these replaced. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the smoke alarms is granted for a total of $218.94. Lawns and garden
The landlord claims that the lawn and garden was overgrown at the end of the tenancy. In particular, the landlord claims that the back area was severely overgrown. The landlord provided an invoice for $980.00 (including GST) for work carried out on the lawn and garden.
The landlord did not provide photographs of the lawn and garden at the beginning or end of the tenancy. The only photograph shown to me during the hearing was taken after the lawn and garden work was completed.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for lawn and garden maintenance. The amount sought by the landlord is quite significant for this type of work. In the circumstances, I consider that more evidence is required than the oral evidence of the landlord regarding the state of the lawns and garden at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of photographs of the lawn and garden at the end of the tenancy, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the garden and lawns were severely overgrown as a result of neglect by the tenant. The landlord’s claim for compensation for garden and lawn maintenance 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.
The landlord provided an invoice from a contractor for $1,888.97 (including GST). This invoice was for a range of work, including repairing damage and other matters the landlord more appropriately assessed as fair wear and tear and did not seek compensation for.
At the hearing, the damage identified by the landlord was a missing pantry door and a damaged bedroom door. The landlord provided photographs at the hearing of the pantry missing a door and a bedroom door off its hinges. Based on these photographs, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the pantry door and bedroom door were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace and repair the doors is granted for a total of $1,011.13 (including GST). The invoice provided by the landlord recorded a total of 18 hours of labour at a cost of $1,345.50 (including GST). The landlord did not provide any evidence of the time spent by the contractor attending to the replacing and repairing the doors. I have granted the landlord the equivalent of 9 hours of labour ($672.75). I consider this to be a more than reasonable estimate of the time the contractor would most likely have spent attending to replacing and repairing the doors. I have also granted the landlord the expenses recorded in the invoice for the purchase of a new pantry door and hinges ($265.67), and new hinges and a magnetic door catcher ($72.71). This brings the total to $1,011.13 (including GST).
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 [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962134 — Property damage at 105 Wharf Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962134 — Property damage at 105 Wharf Street, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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