How much money was awarded in case 4993779?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4933433 D…: $12,047.50 awarded to landlord; Plastering Walls: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet (Depreciated: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet Seat And Fixings: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $445.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993779?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351471-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4993779?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4933433 D…: $12,047.50 awarded to landlord; Plastering Walls: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet (Depreciated: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet Seat And Fixings: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $445.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993779?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351471-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

82A Richardson Road, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993779 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993779 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993779 — net $15,164.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4933433 dated 03/09/2024	$12,047.50	Previous order application 4933433 dated 03/09/2024
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$445.00	Rubbish removal
Replace toilet seat and fixings	$120.00	Replace toilet seat and fixings
Replace carpet (depreciated	$1,700.00	Replace carpet (depreciated
Repairs: plastering walls	$525.00	Repairs: plastering walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,164.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,164.50

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Usoli Oneua Lagalaga, Nitakoli Holamotu and Machaela Cama must pay [The landlord/s] $15,164.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 September 2024 under application 4933433.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by its director.

The landlord had previously requested to appear by phone as he does not live in Auckland. The landlord’s request was granted but the direction sent to the parties confirmed that the tenants should still attend the hearing in person.

I delayed the start of the hearing by 15 minutes in case the tenants had been delayed this morning. I am however satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application and so the hearing proceed in the tenants’ absence.

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

The landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). Previous order

On 3 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 7 August 2024 ($13,537.47), water rates from June 2022 to 7 August 2024 ($3,943.03) and filing fee reimbursement ($27.00). After reimbursement of the bond the balance owing was $12,047.50. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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 explained that the tenants left the property full of rubbish inside and outside and that they had to remove the items and put them in a skip bin. They provided an invoice in the amount of $445.00 for rubbish removal. The landlord provided photos of the interior showing an old mattress and bed base, a table and chair and photos of the exterior showing rubbish left in the garden. I am satisfied that the amount claimed for rubbish removal is reasonable and order compensation in the amount of $445.00.

The landlord said that the tenants did not leave the property clean and tidy. They provided and invoice in the amount of $535.00 for cleaning. However there were very few photos provided of the cleaning required. The photos that I could identify showed a very dirty shower box, basin and toilet, stairs that needed to be vacuumed, a dirty windowsill and areas of mould. I consider reasonable compensation for the cleaning that has been proved to be $300.00 and order compensation of that amount.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord produced an invoice for the following damage:

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 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 explained that it had not been economic to claim against his insurance as his insurer applied multiple excesses for each area all of which were over the damage claimed. This was particularly so for the carpet as each room was given a separate excess.

The landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy but there were not photos provided from the start of the tenancy showing the condition of the property. The landlord referred me to a condition report from the start of the tenancy, signed by the tenants, which records that the condition of every area of the tenancy was in acceptable condition at the start of the tenancy. Repairing fallen toilet seat

The landlord said that the toilet seat was so soiled that it had to be replaced together with the fixings. He said that ultimately the entire toilet had been replaced but that he only sought compensation from the tenants for the toilet seat.

The landlord produced photos showing the toilet seat in very bad condition and detached from the toilet. I do not consider that the tenants would have confirmed that the toilet was in acceptable condition in the condition report if it had been in such a state.

I accept that the toilet seat has been damaged during the tenancy. The amount claimed is reasonable and I order compensation of $120.00. Repair corroded wooden platform

The landlord said that the tenants had a family member with a disability and that they would shower using a shower chair in the bathroom but not in the shower, leading to water damage of the floor below. The landlord produced a photo showing a small hole in the ceiling of the room below (repaired) together with another hole made by the landlord’s contractors when investigating the damage.

There were no photos of the damaged floor or any other reports or information about the repairs undertaken (and how the damage was caused, whether by the tenants or by an unrelated leak). I am unable to find this claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

This claim is dismissed. Repair rain gutters and soffit

The landlord referred me to a photo showing a dark patch that appeared to me to be rust, but explained that this was in fact a burn to the gutter and soffit below which may have occurred while the tenants were having a BBQ.

The photos was difficult to assess and appeared to me to be very high up and unlikely to have been caused by the tenants when having a BBQ. There were no photos from the start of the tenancy showing the condition of the gutters and they were not specifically referred to in the condition report. I am unable to find this claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

This claim is dismissed. Repair damaged carpet inside the house and replace ripped carpet in bedroom

The landlord explained that the tenants asked to remove the carpet from the downstairs of the house to accommodate their disabled family member but that they agreed to reinstated the carpet when they moved out.

The landlord said that the tenants did not replace the carpet. In addition, the carpet upstairs had stains and tears.

The landlord provided photos of the downstairs showing that the carpet and underlay had been removed. The landlord also provided photos showing rips in the carpet upstairs. The landlord said that the carpet was approximately 4 years old when the tenants moved in. The tenancy was for just over two years so was six years old when the tenants moved out.

I accept that the tenants removed the carpet and did not replace it. The ingoing inspection report refers to floor coverings being in acceptable condition and I do not consider that the tenants would have signed the inspection report if there had not in fact been any carpet at all downstairs.

This claim is proved but depreciation is required. The IRD265 depreciation schedules state that carpet has an expected life of 8 years. Applying depreciation, the landlord’s claim in respect of the carpet is reduced to $2,025.00.

However I consider that a further deduction is required as some of the tears in the carpet upstairs are on joins which I consider to be wear and tear. I have therefore reduced the compensation payable to the landlord and order compensation in the amount of $1,700.00. Plastering inner walls

The landlord produced photos showing fairly large holes in various walls throughout the house.

I accept that these holes must have occurred during the tenancy. I do not consider that the tenants would have signed the condition report if the walls had been in such obviously poor condition.

The amount claimed for repairs is reasonable and only includes plastering. I order compensation in the amount of $525.00. Damage gate lock, door handle and door lock

At the hearing the landlord explained that these claims all related to the front door. It was however not clear what the damage was. The door handle appeared intact in both photographs provided. In one photo the door lock was removed but in the other it was intact. It was not clear exactly what damage had occurred. I am unable to find this claim proven on the balance of probabilities. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

The landlord has been substantially successful in their claim although not the amount claimed, largely due to deprecation. I have therefore made an order suppression the landlord’s name and identifying details, and note that an order for suppression was made in the landlord’s previous application which has been incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993779 — net $15,164.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4933433 dated 03/09/2024	$12,047.50	Previous order application 4933433 dated 03/09/2024
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$445.00	Rubbish removal
Replace toilet seat and fixings	$120.00	Replace toilet seat and fixings
Replace carpet (depreciated	$1,700.00	Replace carpet (depreciated
Repairs: plastering walls	$525.00	Repairs: plastering walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,164.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,164.50

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Usoli Oneua Lagalaga, Nitakoli Holamotu and Machaela Cama must pay [The landlord/s] $15,164.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 September 2024 under application 4933433.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by its director.

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

The landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). Previous order

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord produced an invoice for the following damage:

I accept that the toilet seat has been damaged during the tenancy. The amount claimed is reasonable and I order compensation of $120.00. Repair corroded wooden platform

This claim is dismissed. Repair rain gutters and soffit

This claim is dismissed. Repair damaged carpet inside the house and replace ripped carpet in bedroom

The landlord said that the tenants did not replace the carpet. In addition, the carpet upstairs had stains and tears.

The landlord produced photos showing fairly large holes in various walls throughout the house.

I accept that these holes must have occurred during the tenancy. I do not consider that the tenants would have signed the condition report if the walls had been in such obviously poor condition.

The amount claimed for repairs is reasonable and only includes plastering. I order compensation in the amount of $525.00. Damage gate lock, door handle and door lock

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993779 — Property damage at 82A Richardson Road, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993779 — Property damage at 82A Richardson Road, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

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