What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4986030?

The tribunal order states: Justin Edwin Hough must pay Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Judy Lu

How much money was awarded in case 4986030?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,400.00 awarded to tenant; Bathroom Door Repaint: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Door Handles: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Paint Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: Garage And Toilet: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Linoleum In Toilet: $431.25 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Bedroom Repaint: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Door Handles: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Doors: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Walls Patched Lounge: $855.31 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Downstairs carp…: $961.48 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Remote Controls: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $678.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986030?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11384561-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4986030?

The tribunal order states: Justin Edwin Hough must pay Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Judy Lu

How much money was awarded in case 4986030?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,400.00 awarded to tenant; Bathroom Door Repaint: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Door Handles: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Paint Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: Garage And Toilet: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Linoleum In Toilet: $431.25 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Bedroom Repaint: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Door Handles: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Doors: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Walls Patched Lounge: $855.31 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Downstairs carp…: $961.48 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Remote Controls: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $678.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986030?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11384561-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 View Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4986030 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986030 — net $1,057.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Garage paint removal	$100.00		Repairs: Garage paint removal
Repairs: Walls patched lounge	$855.31		Repairs: Walls patched lounge
Repairs: Linoleum in toilet	$431.25		Repairs: Linoleum in toilet
Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet	$276.00		Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet
Repairs: Door handles	$92.00		Repairs: Door handles
Repairs: Upstairs doors	$224.25		Repairs: Upstairs doors
Repairs: Bathroom door repaint	$57.50		Repairs: Bathroom door repaint
Repairs: Upstairs door handles	$92.00		Repairs: Upstairs door handles
Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint	$115.00		Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint
Replace furnishings: Remote controls	$258.75		Replace furnishings: Remote controls
Lock/key replacement	$448.50		Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet	$961.48		Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet
Rubbish removal: Internal	$2,400.00		Rubbish removal: Internal
Rubbish removal: External	$678.50		Rubbish removal: External
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears		$3,400.00	Rent arrears
Total award	$7,017.54	$3,400.00
Net award	$1,057.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,057.54

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986030 — net $1,057.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Repairs: Garage paint removal

$100.00

Repairs: Garage paint removal

Repairs: Walls patched lounge

$855.31

Repairs: Walls patched lounge

Repairs: Linoleum in toilet

$431.25

Repairs: Linoleum in toilet

Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet

$276.00

Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet

Repairs: Door handles

$92.00

Repairs: Door handles

Repairs: Upstairs doors

$224.25

Repairs: Upstairs doors

Repairs: Bathroom door repaint

$57.50

Repairs: Bathroom door repaint

Repairs: Upstairs door handles

$92.00

Repairs: Upstairs door handles

Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint

$115.00

Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint

Replace furnishings: Remote controls

$258.75

Replace furnishings: Remote controls

Lock/key replacement

$448.50

Lock/key replacement

Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet

$961.48

Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet

Rubbish removal: Internal

$2,400.00

Rubbish removal: Internal

Rubbish removal: External

$678.50

Rubbish removal: External

Filing fee reimbursement

$27.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Rent arrears

$3,400.00

Rent arrears

Total award

$7,017.54

$3,400.00

Net award

$1,057.54

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,057.54

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing; the tenant did not attend the hearing. Because I am satisfied the tenant had proper notice of the hearing and did not request an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord stated that the tenancy began on 8 April 2016 and ended a little over eight years later on 11 July 2024. In July 2017, the current tenant’s name was added to the tenancy agreement. He had been living at the premises since the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord provided rent records which show that at the end of the tenancy the tenant was in rent credit to $3,400.00. This has been deducted from the award made against the tenant.

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 landlord provided photographs that show that at the end of the tenancy the tenant left the premises inside and out, full of rubbish, old furniture and old belongings. It was in a poor state of repair. Three large skip bins were required to remove all of the belongings left inside the premises.

Methamphetamine had been consumed at the premises. Testing showed that the levels of methamphetamine residue were below the recommended level of 15μg/100cm2 that necessitated decontamination procedures, (see Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, and also Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947), the highest being 13.3μg/100cm2 as tested in the lounge.

When the contractor was booked to remove the rubbish from the premises, they were advised that the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine. The contractor then undertook special procedures to ensure cleaning and disposal was safe. These measures cost a premium. Given the premises was not above the accepted safe level for methamphetamine contamination, these measures were not necessary.

This appears to have been an error of communication between the landlord and the contractor. I do not consider it would be reasonable to pass on this full cost to the tenant. Because of this I have awarded what I consider a maximum reasonable amount of $800.00 including GST for each skip bin and not the $2,012.15 claimed.

The landlord claimed $678.50 for rubbish removed from the yard of the premises.

The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remotes for the premises. Locks, keys and garage remotes were replaced. Invoices and photographs were produced in support of the claims.

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.

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.

Photographs from the beginning the tenancy show the premises to be older- style, but clean and presentable. There was some, but minimal damage in places such as in one door upstairs. Photographs from the beginning of the tenancy show the garage floor to have significant marking from paint and possible oil also, and paint marks on the walls.

During the tenancy doors and walls were damaged with many fist sized, and bigger holes. Most of these had been poorly patched and several doors needed replacing. The linoleum in the downstairs bathroom was badly marked with paint. The carpet downstairs that was replaced after the Auckland floods in early 2022, was badly stained and needed replacing.

The landlord has replaced the broken doors with new doors and new hardware to match. I accept this is a cost effective solution.

Invoice were produced in support of the claims.

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. 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 amounts ordered are proved.

Because Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Judy Lu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986030 — net $1,057.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Garage paint removal	$100.00		Repairs: Garage paint removal
Repairs: Walls patched lounge	$855.31		Repairs: Walls patched lounge
Repairs: Linoleum in toilet	$431.25		Repairs: Linoleum in toilet
Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet	$276.00		Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet
Repairs: Door handles	$92.00		Repairs: Door handles
Repairs: Upstairs doors	$224.25		Repairs: Upstairs doors
Repairs: Bathroom door repaint	$57.50		Repairs: Bathroom door repaint
Repairs: Upstairs door handles	$92.00		Repairs: Upstairs door handles
Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint	$115.00		Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint
Replace furnishings: Remote controls	$258.75		Replace furnishings: Remote controls
Lock/key replacement	$448.50		Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet	$961.48		Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet
Rubbish removal: Internal	$2,400.00		Rubbish removal: Internal
Rubbish removal: External	$678.50		Rubbish removal: External
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears		$3,400.00	Rent arrears
Total award	$7,017.54	$3,400.00
Net award	$1,057.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,057.54

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986030 — net $1,057.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Repairs: Garage paint removal

$100.00

Repairs: Garage paint removal

Repairs: Walls patched lounge

$855.31

Repairs: Walls patched lounge

Repairs: Linoleum in toilet

$431.25

Repairs: Linoleum in toilet

Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet

$276.00

Repairs: Internal doors: garage and toilet

Repairs: Door handles

$92.00

Repairs: Door handles

Repairs: Upstairs doors

$224.25

Repairs: Upstairs doors

Repairs: Bathroom door repaint

$57.50

Repairs: Bathroom door repaint

Repairs: Upstairs door handles

$92.00

Repairs: Upstairs door handles

Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint

$115.00

Repairs: Upstairs bedroom repaint

Replace furnishings: Remote controls

$258.75

Replace furnishings: Remote controls

Lock/key replacement

$448.50

Lock/key replacement

Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet

$961.48

Replace furnishings: Downstairs carpet

Rubbish removal: Internal

$2,400.00

Rubbish removal: Internal

Rubbish removal: External

$678.50

Rubbish removal: External

Filing fee reimbursement

$27.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Rent arrears

$3,400.00

Rent arrears

Total award

$7,017.54

$3,400.00

Net award

$1,057.54

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,057.54

Order

Justin Edwin Hough must pay Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Judy Lu $1,057.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (5761781-004) to Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Judy Lu immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing; the tenant did not attend the hearing. Because I am satisfied the tenant had proper notice of the hearing and did not request an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord stated that the tenancy began on 8 April 2016 and ended a little over eight years later on 11 July 2024. In July 2017, the current tenant’s name was added to the tenancy agreement. He had been living at the premises since the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord provided rent records which show that at the end of the tenancy the tenant was in rent credit to $3,400.00. This has been deducted from the award made against the tenant.

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 landlord provided photographs that show that at the end of the tenancy the tenant left the premises inside and out, full of rubbish, old furniture and old belongings. It was in a poor state of repair. Three large skip bins were required to remove all of the belongings left inside the premises.
Methamphetamine had been consumed at the premises. Testing showed that the levels of methamphetamine residue were below the recommended level of 15μg/100cm2 that necessitated decontamination procedures, (see Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, and also Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947), the highest being 13.3μg/100cm2 as tested in the lounge.
When the contractor was booked to remove the rubbish from the premises, they were advised that the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine. The contractor then undertook special procedures to ensure cleaning and disposal was safe. These measures cost a premium. Given the premises was not above the accepted safe level for methamphetamine contamination, these measures were not necessary.
This appears to have been an error of communication between the landlord and the contractor. I do not consider it would be reasonable to pass on this full cost to the tenant. Because of this I have awarded what I consider a maximum reasonable amount of $800.00 including GST for each skip bin and not the $2,012.15 claimed.
The landlord claimed $678.50 for rubbish removed from the yard of the premises.
The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remotes for the premises. Locks, keys and garage remotes were replaced. Invoices and photographs were produced in support of the claims.
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.
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.
Photographs from the beginning the tenancy show the premises to be older- style, but clean and presentable. There was some, but minimal damage in places such as in one door upstairs. Photographs from the beginning of the tenancy show the garage floor to have significant marking from paint and possible oil also, and paint marks on the walls.
During the tenancy doors and walls were damaged with many fist sized, and bigger holes. Most of these had been poorly patched and several doors needed replacing. The linoleum in the downstairs bathroom was badly marked with paint. The carpet downstairs that was replaced after the Auckland floods in early 2022, was badly stained and needed replacing.
The landlord has replaced the broken doors with new doors and new hardware to match. I accept this is a cost effective solution.
Invoice were produced in support of the claims.
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. 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 amounts ordered are proved.
Because Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Judy Lu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986030 — Property damage at 50 View Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986030 — Property damage at 50 View Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

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