What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036228 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 5036228?

Cleaning: $651.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $278.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,107.14 awarded to landlord; Carpet Burn And Hole: $351.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036228?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11473339-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036228 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 5036228?

Cleaning: $651.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $278.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,107.14 awarded to landlord; Carpet Burn And Hole: $351.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036228?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11473339-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036228 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036228 — net $2,924.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 September 2024	$1,107.14	Rent arrears to 25 September 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$651.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$278.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: kitchen cabinet	$150.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinet
Rubbish removal	$1,560.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: carpet burn and hole	$351.00	Repairs: carpet burn and hole
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Repairs: strike plate repair	$500.00	Repairs: strike plate repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,924.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,924.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Zivanna Chloe Tekura must pay [The landlord/s] $2,924.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenant did not appear or answer the telephone call made by the Tribunal on the phone number provided.
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 Tenancy began on 19 December 2022.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpet needed cleaning as the Tenant had two dogs which was in breach of the tenancy.
The Landlord claimed deep cleaning of $1222.00 however the Tenants are only required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. It is expected between tenancies, the Landlord should undertake their own deep cleaning. For this reason, I find the more appropriate amount is $700.00.
The tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided for changing of the locks.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the walls, curtains, door frame, kitchen cupboard door and panel on kitchen drawers.
The Landlord did not have an ingoing inspection video but had an exit inspection video from the previous tenant which was dated 10 November 2022. The tenancy started on 19 December 2022. In the previous tenants exit inspection, the Landlord pointed to a lot of holes, scuff marks and dents in the walls in different areas of the house however I have not seen any evidence that these were repaired before the current tenancy started. The difficulty is there are a lot of wall repairs that the Landlord has claimed at the end of this tenancy. There is no evidence if these were from the past tenancy or whether they were new ones. For this reason, the wall damage claim is dismissed.
The Landlord also claimed damage to the curtains however the video from the previous tenancy also showed damage to the curtains. I dismiss this claim as well because there is a lack of evidence to prove the tenant caused this damage.
The Landlord has claimed repair of the toilet frame door, door handle and strike plate repair. In the previous tenancy exit inspection, the door frame and handle were noted as needing to be fixed. As there is no evidence this was repaired before the Tenant moved in, the claim is dismissed.
The strike plate repair was not noted in the video as having issues.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has claimed $3340.00 for the repairs however because the wall damage has not been proven, I find the appropriate amount for the damage is $500.00.
The Landlord claimed $300.00 to repair the damaged kitchen cupboard door and kitchen drawer panel. I note in the exit inspection video for the previous tenancy, the kitchen cupboard door came off the hinge. The same cupboard door needed repair again at the end of this tenancy. I find because there is no evidence that the cupboard door was repaired at the start of the tenancy, I have not awarded this claim.
The appropriate amount is $150.00 to award for the kitchen cabinet drawer only. The claim for the cupboard door is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As [The applicant/s] has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted for the Landlord and the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036228 — net $2,924.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 September 2024	$1,107.14	Rent arrears to 25 September 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$651.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$278.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: kitchen cabinet	$150.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinet
Rubbish removal	$1,560.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: carpet burn and hole	$351.00	Repairs: carpet burn and hole
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Repairs: strike plate repair	$500.00	Repairs: strike plate repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,924.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,924.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Zivanna Chloe Tekura must pay [The landlord/s] $2,924.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenant did not appear or answer the telephone call made by the Tribunal on the phone number provided.
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 Tenancy began on 19 December 2022.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpet needed cleaning as the Tenant had two dogs which was in breach of the tenancy.
The Landlord claimed deep cleaning of $1222.00 however the Tenants are only required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. It is expected between tenancies, the Landlord should undertake their own deep cleaning. For this reason, I find the more appropriate amount is $700.00.
The tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided for changing of the locks.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the walls, curtains, door frame, kitchen cupboard door and panel on kitchen drawers.
The Landlord did not have an ingoing inspection video but had an exit inspection video from the previous tenant which was dated 10 November 2022. The tenancy started on 19 December 2022. In the previous tenants exit inspection, the Landlord pointed to a lot of holes, scuff marks and dents in the walls in different areas of the house however I have not seen any evidence that these were repaired before the current tenancy started. The difficulty is there are a lot of wall repairs that the Landlord has claimed at the end of this tenancy. There is no evidence if these were from the past tenancy or whether they were new ones. For this reason, the wall damage claim is dismissed.
The Landlord also claimed damage to the curtains however the video from the previous tenancy also showed damage to the curtains. I dismiss this claim as well because there is a lack of evidence to prove the tenant caused this damage.
The Landlord has claimed repair of the toilet frame door, door handle and strike plate repair. In the previous tenancy exit inspection, the door frame and handle were noted as needing to be fixed. As there is no evidence this was repaired before the Tenant moved in, the claim is dismissed.
The strike plate repair was not noted in the video as having issues.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has claimed $3340.00 for the repairs however because the wall damage has not been proven, I find the appropriate amount for the damage is $500.00.
The Landlord claimed $300.00 to repair the damaged kitchen cupboard door and kitchen drawer panel. I note in the exit inspection video for the previous tenancy, the kitchen cupboard door came off the hinge. The same cupboard door needed repair again at the end of this tenancy. I find because there is no evidence that the cupboard door was repaired at the start of the tenancy, I have not awarded this claim.
The appropriate amount is $150.00 to award for the kitchen cabinet drawer only. The claim for the cupboard door is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As [The applicant/s] has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted for the Landlord and the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036228 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036228 — Cleanliness

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