What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970934 about?

The tribunal order states: Julia Faye Jennings (Carson) and Shaun Max Carson must pay Slpm Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4970934?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Balance Application 4…: $6,914.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Paining Of Walls: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970934?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11440807-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970934 about?

The tribunal order states: Julia Faye Jennings (Carson) and Shaun Max Carson must pay Slpm Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4970934?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Balance Application 4…: $6,914.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Paining Of Walls: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970934?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11440807-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Taka Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970934 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970934 — net $8,904.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order balance application 4970934 dated 05/02/2025	$6,914.54	Previous order balance application 4970934 dated 05/02/2025
Carpet replacement - cleaning	$600.00	Carpet replacement - cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Paining of walls	$200.00	Repairs: Paining of walls
Lock/key replacement: Front door	$250.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door
Replace smoke alarms	$50.00	Replace smoke alarms
Window repairs	$632.50	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Light bulbs/batteries	$30.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$8,904.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,904.04

Order

Julia Faye Jennings (Carson) and Shaun Max Carson must pay Slpm Limited As Agent For Miru Properties Ltd $8,904.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Dawson for SLPM was permitted to attend by telephone. At the beginning of the hearing, he advised that Mr Jha the director of the company which owns the property wished to attend. Mr Jha attended by telephone.
Mr Carson attended for the tenants. The previous order.
On the 5 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order awarding the landlord the outstanding rent and water owed. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to determine the landlord’s remaining claims. 1 The order of the 5 February is incorporated in this order for the purposes of enforcement. The claims for determination today.
The landlord’s claims for determination by me are: a. Two broken windows- $550 plus GST. b. Carpet cleaning and carpet replacement- the landlord seeks the full amount of the replacement carpet and removal of the old carpet of $4600.00. c. Smoke alarms- $50.00. d. Curtain replacement - $500 e. Paint and Plaster damages $700.00. f. Deck repair - $500.00. g. Lock and key replacement $372.00 h. Cleaning and rubbish removal $1500.00 i. Reimbursement of the filing fee $27.00
At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for deck repair. Evidence and the burden of proof. The burden of proof.
The landlord has the burden of proving its claims. This means that I must find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or a valid term in the tenancy agreement. If the landlord is successful in proving the breach, the landlord still has to prove it’s 1 See TT4970934 Decision of Adjudicator Edison 5 February 2025. loss. This is usually by providing the Tribunal with invoices of the work that has been undertaken by the landlord.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
I record that during today’s hearing Mr Jha said that he had a number of documents that he wished to find and submit after the hearing. I have refused to allow him to do that because this matter has been in front of the Tribunal since August last year (6 months ago). A landlord (especially one who has a professional property manager and who is a landlord for a number of residential tenancies) is expected to attend the hearing having filed all their evidence in support of their claim. The Tribunal must deal with matters expeditiously and justly and allowing further time for a party to supply documents that were readily available for the hearing and should have been anticipated as being needed to have been filed in support of a claim, would be unjust to the other party and inefficient use of the Tribunal’s resources. Cleaning rubbish removal, light bulbs and smoke alarms.
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.
I was provided with photographs of the property taken shortly before the tenancy began, 2 days after the tenancy began and 2 days after the tenancy ended. A comparison of those photographs allows me to assess the state of the property at the beginning of the tenancy compared to the condition of the property at the end.
The tenant says that the there was a pile of rubbish at the beginning of the tenancy left by previous tenants and the landlord. The tenant says he has disposed of the rubbish apart from some items which he moved to the far corner.
The landlord says that the tenant was given a reduced rent because he was to remove the rubbish that was left behind at the beginning of the tenancy. Given that the tenant has not disposed of the rubbish but moved some of it to the back corner, the tenant should be responsible for the cost of removing that rubbish.
A landlord cannot contract out of their obligations in the RTA, and a tenant cannot agree to do something more than what they would be obliged to so in the RTA 2 . The landlord cannot make an agreement that the tenants will accept the property as is where is, because this would be in breach of the landord’s obligation to the tenant to provide the tenant with premises that are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish.
The landlord says that tenant was given a discounted rate of rent because he was doing handyman jobs around the property. In the agreement this is recorded as The handyman works that are referred to are not detailed. It is unclear if this is for works at the property only or for other work that the tenant was doing for the owner at the time. 3
Given the imprecision of this term, I do not accept that the tenant ever agreed to remove all of the rubbish that was present at the beginning of the tenancy, and to be liable for any balance of rubbish left at the end.
The tenant left the outside of the property in a considerably better condition that at the beginning of the tenancy. There were items left behind but most of these were already at the property at the beginning of the tenancy. Mr Dawson submitted that the tenant should pay for the removal of items that they left behind which included large sheets of plywood. I do not make any award for rubbish because: a. The tenant did not accept that they would be liable for the rubbish left at the beginning of the tenancy. b. The tenant left the property with much less rubbish than at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that there was a small amount of cleaning required inside the property to bring it up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Mr Jha had the work done by a contractor “Alvin”. Mr Jha said he could not locate Alvin’s invoices for cleaning. I therefore award $200 for cleaning. This amount is commensurate with other awards made by the Tribunal for the type of cleaning needed to bring this property up to a reasonably clean and tidy state. 2 S 11 RTA. 3 The tenant confirmed that he had done work on another of Mr Jha’s properties at Waiuku.
The tenant accepts that he did not hand back the front door key. He says that this was the only key he had. The landlord disagrees saying that he had 3 keys. There is no record of the number of keys given to the tenants. Therefore, I award $250.00 which is the amount charged to change the locks to the front door.
There were 4 missing light bulbs in the premises at the end of the tenancy and two missing smoke alarms.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage: carpet, curtains, wall repairs and windows.
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 tenant accepts that he was responsible for the 2 broken windows and the repainting of one wall in his daughter’s room which had been plastered but needed repainting.
Mr Jha did not have an invoice for the repair of the windows, but he did have an estimate of costs given. I have awarded the landlord the costs of the window repairs as itemised in the quote.
Mr Jha says that two rooms needed repainting and seeks $400.00 per room. Again, he did not have invoices for this work. I consider that the only wall that needed repainting was the wall in one bedroom and therefore I award an amount for repainting that wall.
The landlord says that the carpet needed replacement due to the tenant’s dogs having been inside the property. The landlord says that there was dog faeces and urine on the carpet.
The landlord says that the carpet was only 4 years old at the beginning of the tenancy and whilst there was some pre-existing carpet damage, that the carpets became heaving stained during the tenancy.
I can see from the photos that the staining of the carpet at the end of the tenancy was more than what would be expected from fair wear and tear over this tenancy. I also note that both Mr Dawson, and the two contractors referred to dog urine smells in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. I am therefore satisfied that it is likely that the carpet needed to be replaced in part due to the odour in the carpet.
The carpet had damage, and in some parts extensive damage (tears, burn marks, staining and rippling) before this tenancy began. Whilst I accept that the tenant caused some damage to the carpet, I do not award the full replacement award because of the condition and age of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord says that the carpet is 4-5 years old but provided no evidence to verify that age. The amount awarded reflects the amount of the tenant’s liability or contribution towards the damage.
I am not satisfied that the tenants damaged the curtains. The curtains appear to have been left in a better state at the end of the tenancy than they were at the beginning. That claim is not proven.
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 filing fee
As the landlord has been mostly successful in its claims then I grant the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970934 — net $8,904.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order balance application 4970934 dated 05/02/2025	$6,914.54	Previous order balance application 4970934 dated 05/02/2025
Carpet replacement - cleaning	$600.00	Carpet replacement - cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Paining of walls	$200.00	Repairs: Paining of walls
Lock/key replacement: Front door	$250.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door
Replace smoke alarms	$50.00	Replace smoke alarms
Window repairs	$632.50	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Light bulbs/batteries	$30.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$8,904.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,904.04

Order

Julia Faye Jennings (Carson) and Shaun Max Carson must pay Slpm Limited As Agent For Miru Properties Ltd $8,904.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Dawson for SLPM was permitted to attend by telephone. At the beginning of the hearing, he advised that Mr Jha the director of the company which owns the property wished to attend. Mr Jha attended by telephone.
Mr Carson attended for the tenants. The previous order.
On the 5 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order awarding the landlord the outstanding rent and water owed. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to determine the landlord’s remaining claims. 1 The order of the 5 February is incorporated in this order for the purposes of enforcement. The claims for determination today.
The landlord’s claims for determination by me are: a. Two broken windows- $550 plus GST. b. Carpet cleaning and carpet replacement- the landlord seeks the full amount of the replacement carpet and removal of the old carpet of $4600.00. c. Smoke alarms- $50.00. d. Curtain replacement - $500 e. Paint and Plaster damages $700.00. f. Deck repair - $500.00. g. Lock and key replacement $372.00 h. Cleaning and rubbish removal $1500.00 i. Reimbursement of the filing fee $27.00
At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for deck repair. Evidence and the burden of proof. The burden of proof.
The landlord has the burden of proving its claims. This means that I must find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or a valid term in the tenancy agreement. If the landlord is successful in proving the breach, the landlord still has to prove it’s 1 See TT4970934 Decision of Adjudicator Edison 5 February 2025. loss. This is usually by providing the Tribunal with invoices of the work that has been undertaken by the landlord.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
I record that during today’s hearing Mr Jha said that he had a number of documents that he wished to find and submit after the hearing. I have refused to allow him to do that because this matter has been in front of the Tribunal since August last year (6 months ago). A landlord (especially one who has a professional property manager and who is a landlord for a number of residential tenancies) is expected to attend the hearing having filed all their evidence in support of their claim. The Tribunal must deal with matters expeditiously and justly and allowing further time for a party to supply documents that were readily available for the hearing and should have been anticipated as being needed to have been filed in support of a claim, would be unjust to the other party and inefficient use of the Tribunal’s resources. Cleaning rubbish removal, light bulbs and smoke alarms.
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.
I was provided with photographs of the property taken shortly before the tenancy began, 2 days after the tenancy began and 2 days after the tenancy ended. A comparison of those photographs allows me to assess the state of the property at the beginning of the tenancy compared to the condition of the property at the end.
The tenant says that the there was a pile of rubbish at the beginning of the tenancy left by previous tenants and the landlord. The tenant says he has disposed of the rubbish apart from some items which he moved to the far corner.
The landlord says that the tenant was given a reduced rent because he was to remove the rubbish that was left behind at the beginning of the tenancy. Given that the tenant has not disposed of the rubbish but moved some of it to the back corner, the tenant should be responsible for the cost of removing that rubbish.
A landlord cannot contract out of their obligations in the RTA, and a tenant cannot agree to do something more than what they would be obliged to so in the RTA 2 . The landlord cannot make an agreement that the tenants will accept the property as is where is, because this would be in breach of the landord’s obligation to the tenant to provide the tenant with premises that are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish.
The landlord says that tenant was given a discounted rate of rent because he was doing handyman jobs around the property. In the agreement this is recorded as The handyman works that are referred to are not detailed. It is unclear if this is for works at the property only or for other work that the tenant was doing for the owner at the time. 3
Given the imprecision of this term, I do not accept that the tenant ever agreed to remove all of the rubbish that was present at the beginning of the tenancy, and to be liable for any balance of rubbish left at the end.
The tenant left the outside of the property in a considerably better condition that at the beginning of the tenancy. There were items left behind but most of these were already at the property at the beginning of the tenancy. Mr Dawson submitted that the tenant should pay for the removal of items that they left behind which included large sheets of plywood. I do not make any award for rubbish because: a. The tenant did not accept that they would be liable for the rubbish left at the beginning of the tenancy. b. The tenant left the property with much less rubbish than at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that there was a small amount of cleaning required inside the property to bring it up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Mr Jha had the work done by a contractor “Alvin”. Mr Jha said he could not locate Alvin’s invoices for cleaning. I therefore award $200 for cleaning. This amount is commensurate with other awards made by the Tribunal for the type of cleaning needed to bring this property up to a reasonably clean and tidy state. 2 S 11 RTA. 3 The tenant confirmed that he had done work on another of Mr Jha’s properties at Waiuku.
The tenant accepts that he did not hand back the front door key. He says that this was the only key he had. The landlord disagrees saying that he had 3 keys. There is no record of the number of keys given to the tenants. Therefore, I award $250.00 which is the amount charged to change the locks to the front door.
There were 4 missing light bulbs in the premises at the end of the tenancy and two missing smoke alarms.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage: carpet, curtains, wall repairs and windows.
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 tenant accepts that he was responsible for the 2 broken windows and the repainting of one wall in his daughter’s room which had been plastered but needed repainting.
Mr Jha did not have an invoice for the repair of the windows, but he did have an estimate of costs given. I have awarded the landlord the costs of the window repairs as itemised in the quote.
Mr Jha says that two rooms needed repainting and seeks $400.00 per room. Again, he did not have invoices for this work. I consider that the only wall that needed repainting was the wall in one bedroom and therefore I award an amount for repainting that wall.
The landlord says that the carpet needed replacement due to the tenant’s dogs having been inside the property. The landlord says that there was dog faeces and urine on the carpet.
The landlord says that the carpet was only 4 years old at the beginning of the tenancy and whilst there was some pre-existing carpet damage, that the carpets became heaving stained during the tenancy.
I can see from the photos that the staining of the carpet at the end of the tenancy was more than what would be expected from fair wear and tear over this tenancy. I also note that both Mr Dawson, and the two contractors referred to dog urine smells in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. I am therefore satisfied that it is likely that the carpet needed to be replaced in part due to the odour in the carpet.
The carpet had damage, and in some parts extensive damage (tears, burn marks, staining and rippling) before this tenancy began. Whilst I accept that the tenant caused some damage to the carpet, I do not award the full replacement award because of the condition and age of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord says that the carpet is 4-5 years old but provided no evidence to verify that age. The amount awarded reflects the amount of the tenant’s liability or contribution towards the damage.
I am not satisfied that the tenants damaged the curtains. The curtains appear to have been left in a better state at the end of the tenancy than they were at the beginning. That claim is not proven.
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 filing fee
As the landlord has been mostly successful in its claims then I grant the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970934 — Property damage at 21 Taka Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970934 — Property damage at 21 Taka Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions