What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990148 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4990148?

Cleaning: $408.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $236.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Base Boards: $318.13 awarded to landlord; Glass Door And Aluminium Door: $976.81 awarded to landlord; Laundry Door: $56.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990148?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11329512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990148 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4990148?

Cleaning: $408.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $236.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord; Base Boards: $318.13 awarded to landlord; Glass Door And Aluminium Door: $976.81 awarded to landlord; Laundry Door: $56.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990148?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11329512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

304 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990148 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4990148 — net $2,273.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.8.2024	$2,200.00	Rent arrears to 13.8.2024
Replace light bulbs	$236.74	Replace light bulbs
Repairs: base boards	$318.13	Repairs: base boards
Repairs: laundry door	$56.35	Repairs: laundry door
Repairs: glass door and aluminium door	$976.81	Repairs: glass door and aluminium door
Cleaning: oven, toilet, shower and carpet cleaning	$408.25	Cleaning: oven, toilet, shower and carpet cleaning
Bedroom carpet replacement – insurance excess	$650.00	Bedroom carpet replacement – insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,273.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,273.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4990148 — net $2,273.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.8.2024	$2,200.00	Rent arrears to 13.8.2024
Replace light bulbs	$236.74	Replace light bulbs
Repairs: base boards	$318.13	Repairs: base boards
Repairs: laundry door	$56.35	Repairs: laundry door
Repairs: glass door and aluminium door	$976.81	Repairs: glass door and aluminium door
Cleaning: oven, toilet, shower and carpet cleaning	$408.25	Cleaning: oven, toilet, shower and carpet cleaning
Bedroom carpet replacement – insurance excess	$650.00	Bedroom carpet replacement – insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,273.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,273.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited T/As The Agency $1,297.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited T/As The Agency immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference in two parts, on 28 November 2024 and on 16 January 2025. Ms Whitt and Ms Te Rongopatai, representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], all attended both hearings. Additionally, Vicki Thompson, a support person for the landlord, was also present at the teleconference hearing on 16 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agree the tenancy ended by mutual agreement on 13 August 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on 13 August 2024, was $2,200.00. The tenants did not dispute this claim.

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 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. Cleaning
The landlord said the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice for $785.00, which they claimed, for cleaning and carpet cleaning. The cleaning invoice narrative included cleaning the inside and outside of windows, kitchen cabinetry and surfaces, cleaning walls, frames and doors (with removal of stain and fly spots), cleaning the oven, fireplace and general cleaning. The landlord said the general cleaning meant the cleaner went over the bathroom and shower door. The invoice also included $220.00 plus GST for steam cleaning the carpets and said some stains could not be removed.
The landlord provided an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 13 August 2024, with accompanying photographs of the condition of the property. The landlord’s Ingoing Inspection Report was dated 13 October 2021 and was dated about 7 months after the tenancy had started so the photographs in that report do not record the condition of the property prior to the tenancy.
The landlord pointed to photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report showing the carpet staining, a ‘grubby’ dishwasher and oven and shower door and toilet in particular. They said ash was cleaned from the fireplace. There were no photographs of the windows’ condition, nor the condition of the kitchen cabinetry nor the inside of the fireplace. The landlord confirmed the professional cleaner cleaned the property on 28 August 2024.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The tenants said they moved out before 13 August 2024, as they were moving to the South Island. They indicated they arranged for their family to go into the property and clean and do some other jobs getting things repaired. However, they said that both [the tenant]’s sister and her mother-in-law saw the owner go into the property prior to the official vacate date of 13 August 2024. There were no witness statements provided from either of these. However, the tenants confirmed that the photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report of 13 August 2024 confirmed the condition of the property as they left it when they moved out. The tenants believed the amount claimed for cleaning by the landlord was excessive, said they had cleaned the property before they left, had cleaned out the fireplace, and had had a professional carpet cleaner come to the property twice in the weeks before they left. [The tenant/s] acknowledged the shower might have needed a ‘once over’, and that there were stains on the carpet but said they left the oven and kitchen cabinetry reasonably clean and tidy.
From the photographs and other evidence as outlined above, I find the tenants left the property mostly reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs of the oven, toilet and shower indicate a likely need for cleaning these items, however. I also accept that, given the level of carpet stains in the property at the end of the tenancy, the landlord likely required the carpets to be steam cleaned and so I allow this cost. The tenants did not provide confirmation of their own professional carpet cleaning. I find there was insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to justify any cleaning cost relating to windows, walls, frames, doors and kitchen cabinetry or the fireplace.
There was no hourly rate indicated in the landlord’s cleaning invoice. I find an hourly rate of $45.00/hour is a reasonable hourly rate for cleaning and allow the landlord 3 hours @$45.00/hour, plus GST, for a sub-total of $155.25 to clean the oven, toilet and shower. I also allow the landlord the cost of the steam cleaning of the carpet, which was $220.00 plus GST in the invoice, for a sub- total of $253.00. Therefore, I award the landlord a total of $408.25 for cleaning and carpet cleaning. Replace lightbulbs
The landlord said the tenants did not replace missing lightbulbs and claimed $236.74 to replace 2 heat lamps and 6 lightbulbs. The tenants acknowledged there were likely missing lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy but thought the landlord’s claim was excessive. The landlord provided an invoice showing the cost of the lightbulbs and heat lamps was $147.36 plus GST plus an hour of a handyman’s time at $58.50 plus GST to install them. The tenants did not provide any evidence of any other costs of lightbulbs and heat lamps. Given this, I find the landlord’s claim for $236.74 to be reasonable to replace 6 lightbulbs and 2 heat lamps and for somebody to install them, and award this to the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord withdrew their claim for gardening work at the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Repair base boards a. Base boards at the back exterior of the property were broken and had to be repaired. The landlord said the base boards formed part of the back deck of the house. The landlord provided photographs of this and an invoice for $318.13 to repair this. The tenants acknowledged their children had ridden their bikes into the base boards and that they were broken by this. b. Given the evidence of the tenants’ children riding their bikes into the base boards and breaking them, I find this damage to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost and the section 49B RTA cap. As the base boards damage was repaired, not replaced, I do not allow for depreciation. I find the cost to repair the base boards to be reasonable given the photographic evidence of the damage and so award $318.13 to the landlord to repair the base boards. Replace laundry door c. The laundry door had been removed and was broken. The landlord provided a photograph of the broken laundry door. The tenants confirmed they had removed the laundry door and put it in the garage. They said they had planned for their family to help them replace and install this before the vacate date but were unable to do so as their relatives saw the owner at the property and did not feel comfortable proceeding at the property. d. Given this evidence, I found the damage to the laundry door to be intentional damage on the part of the tenants. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. e. 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. f. The landlord said the laundry door had to be replaced and installed at a cost of $375.73, for which an invoice was provided by the landlord. I find this to be a reasonable cost. g. The property manager thought the laundry door might be from the 1990s, so around 24 years old approximately. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of such doors in a rental property is around 25 years. So, the laundry door may have exceeded its lifespan. However, I also accept that the laundry door was likely in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I award the landlord 15% of the replacement and repair costs for the laundry door as compensation for the damage, which comes to $56.35. Glass doors in sunroom h. The glass exit door in the sunroom had broken glass which had to be replaced and an aluminium entry door in the sunroom had been removed, was broken and was found by the landlord in an outside building. The landlord claimed $976.81 to replace the glass and reinstall both doors and provided an invoice and clarifying email from [glazier] confirming this cost. The tenants did not dispute this claim but clarified they had intended to have their relatives get this done for them before the vacate date but could not. As this claim is not disputed, I award the landlord $976.81 to replace the glass and reinstall both doors in the sunroom. Carpet replacement i. The landlord said the carpet in one of the bedrooms had large staining, that the staining could not be removed with carpet cleaning and so must be replaced. They provided a photograph of the bedroom carpet, which showed extensive staining on the carpet. The landlord said the owner has made an insurance claim, which was confirmed in writing, and that they claimed the insurance excess of $650.00 to replace the carpet. The property manager said the carpet is in the process of being replaced currently, as the insurance claim has been allowed. The tenants confirmed the carpet staining in the bedroom had likely been from their children spilling juice on it and, given the professional carpet cleaning had failed to remove that staining, they understood that the carpet in the bedroom then has to be replaced. j. Given the evidence as outlined above, I find the bedroom carpet damage to be careless damage on the part of the tenant, as it likely came from their children spilling liquids on the carpet. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. k. The landlord did not provide a quote or invoice for the cost of replacing the bedroom carpet, as they were claiming the insurance excess of $650.00. l. The tenants believed the carpet was about 35 years old. The property manager thought it would be over 10 years old but was not sure how old the carpet was. m. The insurance excess here is $650.00. The equivalent of four week’s rent @ $700.00/week is $2,800.00. Further to section 49B(3) RTA, the tenant’s liability in relation to careless damage is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four week’s rent. I accept that the insurance excess of $650.00 is likely less than the depreciated cost of a new bedroom carpet and so award the landlord the insurance excess of $650.00 to replace the carpet. n. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited T/As The Agency has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenants both requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants have young children and have moved to the South Island. In my view, they left the property mostly reasonably clean and tidy and acknowledged that several items were damaged by their children or were removed by them. The tenants said they had arranged for family members to sort out any repairs on their behalf, as they had already moved out of town, but their family members were not comfortable proceeding with this, once they saw the owner at the property before the end of the tenancy. Given the evidence and in the circumstances, I find the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990148 — Property damage at 304 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990148 — Property damage at 304 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions