What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966474?

The tribunal order states: Linda Sing and William Smith must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe

How much money was awarded in case 4966474?

Cleaning: $753.15 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $730.41 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,322.86 awarded to landlord; Hole In Floor: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Hole in walls, scratch marks from do…: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $430.39 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $319.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966474?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11476567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966474?

The tribunal order states: Linda Sing and William Smith must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe

How much money was awarded in case 4966474?

Cleaning: $753.15 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $730.41 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,322.86 awarded to landlord; Hole In Floor: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Hole in walls, scratch marks from do…: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $430.39 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $319.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966474?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11476567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Perkins Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966474 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966474 — net $5,633.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 June 2024	$2,322.86	Rent arrears to 24 June 2024
Water rates	$319.45	Water rates
Cleaning	$753.15	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$430.39	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Hole in floor	$300.00	Repairs: Hole in floor
Repairs: Hole in walls, scratch marks from dogs, painting and plastering	$750.00	Repairs: Hole in walls, scratch marks from dogs, painting and plastering
Lock/key replacement	$730.41	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,633.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,633.26

Ms Newton for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.

The tenancy began on the 31 March 2021 and ended in June 2024. At the beginning of the tenancy the house was brand new. The tenants lived in the home with their two children.

The tenancy agreement did not allow the tenants to have a dog.

The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal replacement keys and repairs and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord submitted copies of the entry and exit inspection reports and invoices for the work completed at the property.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the tenants signed over the bond to the landlord. The amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $5,122.86 less the bond of $2800.00 = $2322.86 now owing.

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.

The inspection photographs speak for themselves, they show little if any attempt had been made to clean the property. I am satisfied that the cleaning that the landlord had completed at the property was needed to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I am satisfied that the carpets needed cleaning to remove stains and the odour of a dog that the tenants were keeping at the property.

The tenants left a large bag outside the property full of rubbish, as the large orange bag was overloaded it could not be removed for the usual cost. The landlord had to pay someone to remove the rubbish and also general rubbish which had been left in the recycling bin.

The tenants did not return the master door key and one of the garage door remotes which meant that the remaining garage door remote had to be reprogrammes and the master door keys replaced.

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 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: a. considerable scratch marks around the door jambs, sills and joinery of the house causing by a dog’s claw marks. The tenants say that the dog did not live at the property but was visiting. Nevertheless, the tenants are responsible for the damage caused by dogs that visit the property with the tenant’s permission. b. Screw holes in the walls. c. Scrap marks in the walls. d. Areas where the tenant had tried to remedy holes and scrape marks which were poorly repaired, and the paint work did not match the paint colour on the walls. e. A hole in one of the wooden floorboards in the lounge.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Whilst I am satisfied that the tenants caused this damage, I am not satisfied that the landlord should be compensated for the amounts that the landlord has sought. This is because the landlord has not actually attended to the repair work and has only supplied quotes for the work.

I am not satisfied that the costs claimed by the landlord are reasonable for repair work, and therefore I have reduced the amount awarded. I also note that some of the areas that the landlord claimed required plastering and painting would be considered fair wear and tear caused by any family living in a property for 3 years.

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 Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe As Agent For Vivian Tang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966474 — net $5,633.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 June 2024	$2,322.86	Rent arrears to 24 June 2024
Water rates	$319.45	Water rates
Cleaning	$753.15	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$430.39	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Hole in floor	$300.00	Repairs: Hole in floor
Repairs: Hole in walls, scratch marks from dogs, painting and plastering	$750.00	Repairs: Hole in walls, scratch marks from dogs, painting and plastering
Lock/key replacement	$730.41	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,633.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,633.26

Ms Newton for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.

The tenancy began on the 31 March 2021 and ended in June 2024. At the beginning of the tenancy the house was brand new. The tenants lived in the home with their two children.

The tenancy agreement did not allow the tenants to have a dog.

The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal replacement keys and repairs and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord submitted copies of the entry and exit inspection reports and invoices for the work completed at the property.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenants did not return the master door key and one of the garage door remotes which meant that the remaining garage door remote had to be reprogrammes and the master door keys replaced.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Pukekohe As Agent For Vivian Tang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966474 — Rent arrears at 13 Perkins Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966474 — Rent arrears at 13 Perkins Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions