What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966855?

The tribunal order states: Maggie David to pay Street Smart Property Management Limited $735.57 from

How much money was awarded in case 4966855?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $308.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966855?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11300153-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966855?

The tribunal order states: Maggie David to pay Street Smart Property Management Limited $735.57 from

How much money was awarded in case 4966855?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $308.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966855?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11300153-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 47 McRae Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966855 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966855 — net $735.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 July 2024	$308.57	Rent arrears to 4 July 2024
Pest control	$400.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$735.57
Bond	$1,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$735.57

Order

Maggie David to pay Street Smart Property Management Limited $735.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (3075403-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Street Smart Property Management Limited: $735.57 Maggie David: $904.43
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $308.57.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming for replacing the carpet, repairing holes in walls and doors, pest control, replacing kitchen cupboards and replacing curtains.
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.
The tenancy began in August 2017 and ended in July 2024. That is a period of almost seven years. The landlord claims that the premises were last redecorated in 2014.
Start of tenancy photographs show the property to be very clean and in good condition. However the carpet does have some stains, which the landlord accepts, and I believe a photograph of the kitchen cupboard shows the base of the cupboard to be slightly sagging, discoloured and the melamine-like veneer to be chipped and coming away. Carpet and curtains
The Inland Revenue General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024 lists the estimated useful life for drapes and carpet as 8 years. This means that after eight years of depreciation, there is no residual value left in carpet or drapes.
Because the drapes and curtains of this premises were replaced ten years before the end of this tenancy, the landlord can be expected to have claimed depreciation down to a value of $0.00 for these chattels. Because of that, I am not prepared to make an award for drapes or carpet against the tenant. Holes in walls
The landlord claims that during the tenancy, the tenant put 18 holes in the walls and doors of the premises, in the entranceway, the lounge, the dining room, the bathroom, the toilet and the two bedrooms. Photographs of the holes were produced by the landlord.
The landlord made an insurance claim and the insurance company awarded the landlord $6,290.29 to repair four of the holes after a total excess of $1,000.00 was deducted.
The landlord stated they had all of the 18 holes repaired themselves at a cost of $4,200.00. An invoice from Niuniu Limited was produced in support. The landlord is seeking compensation for this $4,200.00, and also $1,000.00 insurance excess.
The tenant disputes a number of the holes being caused carelessly or intentionally. The tenant states that one of the holes was where a bathroom tile collapsed when her daughter stood on it. When her daughter fell, she made a dent in the wall. This happened in 2018 or 2019, and over time the dent deteriorated and eventually turned into a hole.
The tenant also pointed out that some holes were caused when door handles made holes in the walls because of a lack of door stoppers. The landlord has not made repairs to these holes during the tenancy, or required the tenant to repair them. This has contributed to the impression that the premises has not been actively managed by the landlord during much of this tenancy.
The landlord confirmed they received the $6,290.29 payout from the insurance company and have paid a total of $4,200.00 to have the holes repaired. The owner was at pains to explain that an economical solution was used for the repairs and that if the full house had been stripped and redecorated, the cost would have been $8,000.00 to $10,000.00.
The tenant confirmed that no decorating had been done at the property during her seven-year tenancy.
I must take 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.
The purpose of an order for compensation is not to penalise the tenant.
In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The issue in this claim is that the insurance payout more than covers the repairs, even after the excess has been deducted and before depreciation as a result of wear and tear over a seven-year tenancy is taken into account.
For these reasons I determine that the insurance payout has more than compensated the landlord for their loss, and I decline to make an order against the tenant for repair of the holes to the walls and doors. Pest control
The landlord is claiming $400.00 for pest control due to an infestation of cockroaches at the property.
This claim is not disputed by the tenant: The tenant accepts there was an infestation of cockroaches at the property that was likely caused by her failing to keep the premises sufficiently clean and tidy.
The claim is proved by consent. Damage to the kitchen cupboards
The landlord claims that the kitchen cupboards were so badly damaged that they needed replacing. The landlord claims they spent $4,432.00 replacing the cupboards. They are seeking partial compensation of $1,000.00.
End of tenancy photographs show the cupboards to be very damaged probably as a result of water getting under the melamine-like surface and undermining the composite material of the structure.
The tenant pointed out, and I accept that in the start of tenancy photographs, the shelves show signs of the melamine being chipped and coming away. In my view, it is only to be expected that after several years of this sort of entry level product not being maintained in a watertight condition, in a wet area, that they will deteriorate beyond usable condition.
The tenant also stated that the kitchen bench allowed water to drip from around the sink area so that the shelves were often wet.
Once again I note that the kitchen is apparently a minimum of ten years old and the landlord has not maintained the cupboards in a state that would them more resilient to water damage.
In my view, the landlord has not established that the damage to the kitchen cupboards is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved.
Because Street Smart Property Management Limited has somewhat succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966855 — net $735.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 July 2024	$308.57	Rent arrears to 4 July 2024
Pest control	$400.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$735.57
Bond	$1,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$735.57

Order

Maggie David to pay Street Smart Property Management Limited $735.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 (3075403-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Street Smart Property Management Limited: $735.57 Maggie David: $904.43
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $308.57.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming for replacing the carpet, repairing holes in walls and doors, pest control, replacing kitchen cupboards and replacing curtains.
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.
The tenancy began in August 2017 and ended in July 2024. That is a period of almost seven years. The landlord claims that the premises were last redecorated in 2014.
Start of tenancy photographs show the property to be very clean and in good condition. However the carpet does have some stains, which the landlord accepts, and I believe a photograph of the kitchen cupboard shows the base of the cupboard to be slightly sagging, discoloured and the melamine-like veneer to be chipped and coming away. Carpet and curtains
The Inland Revenue General Depreciation Rates, IR265, August 2024 lists the estimated useful life for drapes and carpet as 8 years. This means that after eight years of depreciation, there is no residual value left in carpet or drapes.
Because the drapes and curtains of this premises were replaced ten years before the end of this tenancy, the landlord can be expected to have claimed depreciation down to a value of $0.00 for these chattels. Because of that, I am not prepared to make an award for drapes or carpet against the tenant. Holes in walls
The landlord claims that during the tenancy, the tenant put 18 holes in the walls and doors of the premises, in the entranceway, the lounge, the dining room, the bathroom, the toilet and the two bedrooms. Photographs of the holes were produced by the landlord.
The landlord made an insurance claim and the insurance company awarded the landlord $6,290.29 to repair four of the holes after a total excess of $1,000.00 was deducted.
The landlord stated they had all of the 18 holes repaired themselves at a cost of $4,200.00. An invoice from Niuniu Limited was produced in support. The landlord is seeking compensation for this $4,200.00, and also $1,000.00 insurance excess.
The tenant disputes a number of the holes being caused carelessly or intentionally. The tenant states that one of the holes was where a bathroom tile collapsed when her daughter stood on it. When her daughter fell, she made a dent in the wall. This happened in 2018 or 2019, and over time the dent deteriorated and eventually turned into a hole.
The tenant also pointed out that some holes were caused when door handles made holes in the walls because of a lack of door stoppers. The landlord has not made repairs to these holes during the tenancy, or required the tenant to repair them. This has contributed to the impression that the premises has not been actively managed by the landlord during much of this tenancy.
The landlord confirmed they received the $6,290.29 payout from the insurance company and have paid a total of $4,200.00 to have the holes repaired. The owner was at pains to explain that an economical solution was used for the repairs and that if the full house had been stripped and redecorated, the cost would have been $8,000.00 to $10,000.00.
The tenant confirmed that no decorating had been done at the property during her seven-year tenancy.
I must take 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.
The purpose of an order for compensation is not to penalise the tenant.
In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The issue in this claim is that the insurance payout more than covers the repairs, even after the excess has been deducted and before depreciation as a result of wear and tear over a seven-year tenancy is taken into account.
For these reasons I determine that the insurance payout has more than compensated the landlord for their loss, and I decline to make an order against the tenant for repair of the holes to the walls and doors. Pest control
The landlord is claiming $400.00 for pest control due to an infestation of cockroaches at the property.
This claim is not disputed by the tenant: The tenant accepts there was an infestation of cockroaches at the property that was likely caused by her failing to keep the premises sufficiently clean and tidy.
The claim is proved by consent. Damage to the kitchen cupboards
The landlord claims that the kitchen cupboards were so badly damaged that they needed replacing. The landlord claims they spent $4,432.00 replacing the cupboards. They are seeking partial compensation of $1,000.00.
End of tenancy photographs show the cupboards to be very damaged probably as a result of water getting under the melamine-like surface and undermining the composite material of the structure.
The tenant pointed out, and I accept that in the start of tenancy photographs, the shelves show signs of the melamine being chipped and coming away. In my view, it is only to be expected that after several years of this sort of entry level product not being maintained in a watertight condition, in a wet area, that they will deteriorate beyond usable condition.
The tenant also stated that the kitchen bench allowed water to drip from around the sink area so that the shelves were often wet.
Once again I note that the kitchen is apparently a minimum of ten years old and the landlord has not maintained the cupboards in a state that would them more resilient to water damage.
In my view, the landlord has not established that the damage to the kitchen cupboards is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved.
Because Street Smart Property Management Limited has somewhat succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966855 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 47 McRae Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966855 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 47 McRae Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions