What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4965153?

The tribunal order states: Lilly Hine Te Wera must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,438.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4965153?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965153?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10851002-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4965153?

The tribunal order states: Lilly Hine Te Wera must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,438.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4965153?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965153?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10851002-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

162 Browns Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965153 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965153 — net $2,438.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$390.00	claim for compensation for carpet cleaning of $390.00 is proven and is reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$1,000.00	condition shown in the photos and the cost of repair, I order the tenant to pay $1,000.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not d…
Net award	$2,438.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,438.00

Lilly Hine Te Wera must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,438.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $452.00 (6306929-002) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.

The notice of hearing is taken to have been served on the tenant as steps have been taken which are likely to have brought the notice to the attention of the tenant (s.91B (2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing.

The tenant did not attend by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been served. I am satisfied that notice has been served.

The tenancy ended in November 2020. The application by the landlord was filed with the Tribunal in August 2024.The service requirements in s.91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply. The tenant now lives in one of the landlord’s other tenanted premises. The tenant’s email address for that tenancy has been used to give the tenant notice of this hearing as well as physically delivering the notice to the tenant. I am satisfied that the notice has been brought to the attention of the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the 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, 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.

The landlord provided extensive photo evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claim for compensation for carpet cleaning of $390.00 is proven and is reasonable.

The landlord claims $3,335.00 for rubbish removal. Whilst the photos show a large amount of rubbish to remove, I am not convinced that the claimed amount is reasonable and I have reduced it to $1,500.00.

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: The landlord invoice is for the repair of more than 150 holes. The photos show holes in the walls and doors in every room of the house. I consider them to have been caused intentionally. Having said that, the landlord claim for $5,175.00 is very high. Taking into consideration the condition shown in the photos and the cost of repair, I order the tenant to pay $1,000.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965153 — net $2,438.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$390.00	claim for compensation for carpet cleaning of $390.00 is proven and is reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$1,000.00	condition shown in the photos and the cost of repair, I order the tenant to pay $1,000.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not d…
Net award	$2,438.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,438.00

Order

Lilly Hine Te Wera must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,438.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $452.00 (6306929-002) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.
The notice of hearing is taken to have been served on the tenant as steps have been taken which are likely to have brought the notice to the attention of the tenant (s.91B (2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing.
The tenant did not attend by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been served. I am satisfied that notice has been served.
The tenancy ended in November 2020. The application by the landlord was filed with the Tribunal in August 2024.The service requirements in s.91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply. The tenant now lives in one of the landlord’s other tenanted premises. The tenant’s email address for that tenancy has been used to give the tenant notice of this hearing as well as physically delivering the notice to the tenant. I am satisfied that the notice has been brought to the attention of the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the 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, 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.
The landlord provided extensive photo evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claim for compensation for carpet cleaning of $390.00 is proven and is reasonable.
The landlord claims $3,335.00 for rubbish removal. Whilst the photos show a large amount of rubbish to remove, I am not convinced that the claimed amount is reasonable and I have reduced it to $1,500.00.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: The landlord invoice is for the repair of more than 150 holes. The photos show holes in the walls and doors in every room of the house. I consider them to have been caused intentionally. Having said that, the landlord claim for $5,175.00 is very high. Taking into consideration the condition shown in the photos and the cost of repair, I order the tenant to pay $1,000.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965153 — Property damage at 162 Browns Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965153 — Property damage at 162 Browns Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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