What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036328 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5036328?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Usage 08/11/23 – 14/08/2…: $2,676.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $331.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Tenant Reimbursement Electricity 01/…: $787.47 awarded to tenant; Walls and Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036328 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5036328?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Usage 08/11/23 – 14/08/2…: $2,676.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $331.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Tenant Reimbursement Electricity 01/…: $787.47 awarded to tenant; Walls and Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036328 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036328 — net $1,625.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/10/2024	$331.44		Rent arrears to 07/10/2024
General cleaning and rubbish removal	$150.00		General cleaning and rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$299.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs walls and doors	$1,000.00		Repairs walls and doors
Window repair	$276.00		Window repair
Electricity usage 08/11/23 – 14/08/24	$2,676.23		Electricity usage 08/11/23 – 14/08/24
Tenant reimbursement electricity 01/ 2023		$787.47	Tenant reimbursement electricity 01/ 2023
Total award	$4,732.67	$787.47
Net award	$1,625.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,625.20

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036328 — net $1,625.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/10/2024	$331.44		Rent arrears to 07/10/2024
General cleaning and rubbish removal	$150.00		General cleaning and rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$299.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs walls and doors	$1,000.00		Repairs walls and doors
Window repair	$276.00		Window repair
Electricity usage 08/11/23 – 14/08/24	$2,676.23		Electricity usage 08/11/23 – 14/08/24
Tenant reimbursement electricity 01/ 2023		$787.47	Tenant reimbursement electricity 01/ 2023
Total award	$4,732.67	$787.47
Net award	$1,625.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,625.20

Order

The tenant calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [ redacted] appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 17 December 2022 and ended on 07 October 2024. The tenant’s claim was filed on 15 October 2024. On 19 November 2024, the application was scheduled for an in-person hearing on 10 December 2024. However, the hearing did not proceed on that date. Instead, the Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to clarify the claims and make any evidence directions necessary.
On 10 December 2024, the landlord filed a cross application.
On 31 January 2025, both sets of matters were set down for an in person hearing on 10 February 2025 Claims
The tenant seeks refund of the bond.
Additionally, the tenant claims: i. The landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition, ii. The tenant has been held liable for power usage that they are not responsible for (between January 2023 and 07 November 2023), iii. The landlord should reimburse the tenant for damage to a door that occurred during an attempted break in.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
Regarding the tenant’s electricity claim, a power bill provided by the tenant at the CMC indicated that it was possible to quantify the tenant’s actual liability and the portion that they are not responsible for. The Tribunal directed the tenant to provide all of the power bills for the claimed period. However, the tenant has not complied with this direction, stating that they have provided all the bills they possess and have not requested a full set from the electricity provider, which they would have been entitled to obtain. The Tribunal has offered to adjourn the power claim to provide the tenant an opportunity to provide further evidence, but this was declined.
The landlord’s claims are as follows: i. The tenant owes rent arrears to 07 October 2024, ii. The tenant owes power usage for the period 07 November 2023 to 15 August 2024, iii. The tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet, iv. The tenant is liable for damage to a door, window, and walls.
In addition to the rent arrears the landlord seeks compensation.
The onus of proving a claim rest with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Tenants’ claims Electricity
The property is a four-bedroom studio unit on the first floor of a commercial building. The ground floor is used as storage space by the landlord. The landlord purchased the property shortly before entering the tenancy. The property was renovated, during which time the electricity was transferred to the building contractor. The electricity appears to have remained in the building contractor’s name until the tenant arranged for the transfer in January 2023.
The tenant states that around early September 2023, they received a letter from the provider questioning their electricity usage. The tenant discovered that there were two meters appearing on their account. The tenant advised the landlord. The landlord arranged for the electricity to be transferred into their name while the matter was investigated. The landlord states that while there was a single meter board there was a check meter for the downstairs storage unit. Both meters are shown on the accounts produced.
The landlord states as soon as they were informed, they had the electricity transferred into their name and took steps to install a second line and separate meter. This does not appear to have been a simple task. The work was completed on 15 August 2024 after which the electricity for the property was transferred back to the tenant.
The tenant has not paid any money toward the electricity account for the period up to 07 November 2024, and the provider has passed the amount owing to a debt collector.
The tenant is claiming a full refund of the amount owed from early January 2023 to 07 November 2023 of $3,149.88. The tenant is also seeking damages on the basis that they had been misled, stating had they known that an issue would arise with the electricity, they would not have entered into the tenancy.
The landlord’s counterclaim is for the tenant’s share of the electricity from 07 November 2023 to 15 August 2024.
On 02 October 2023, the landlord asked the tenant to provide a copy of the accounts so they could reimburse the tenant. The tenant replied, attaching photographs of some accounts, and expressed concern that the amount owed was “piling up” causing them stress.
On 01 November 2023, the tenant sent the landlord a demand notice from the provider. The tenant added that they had not paid any of the bills since the start of the tenancy, believing that something was wrong with the charges.
Section 39(3) of the Act states that tenants are responsible “for all outgoings that in respect of the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”.
As stated, in the previous hearing, I noted from the electricity account provided by the tenant on 10 December 2024 that it was possible to identify the usage solely attributable to the tenant and the landlord.
The landlord has produced electricity accounts for each month of the nine-month period from 07 November 2023 to 15 August 2024. As with the tenant’s accounts the two meters are clearly identified. The landlord has provided an invoice for the tenant which details the electricity used, which can be reconciled with the accounts. The total amount includes an “Electricity Market Fee – no discount” of $262.80. However, I am not satisfied regarding the tenant’s liability for this amount, so I deduct it. For the nine-month period, the tenant’s usage was $2,676.23.
Analysing the tenant’s accounts from early 2023 to 07 November 2023 it is possible to determine that on average 20% of the total usage was attributable to the landlord’s downstairs storage area. Twenty percent of $3,149.88 equals $630.00. Decision
I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Act or that the tenant has been misled. In my view, any stress and anxiety caused to the tenant could have been avoided. The tenant states they suspected something was wrong with the electricity charges since the commencement of the tenancy but failed to raise this with the landlord until September 2023, some nine months later. Once the issue was raised the landlord offered to reimburse the tenant for the electricity they had used and took steps to resolve the matter moving forward.
Section 85(2) of the Act states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.
I am satisfied that no breach occurred; however, the way the electricity supply was configured at the commencement of the tenancy was a factor contributing to the debt owed by the tenant to the provider. I also note that the debt appears to have accrued interest and penalties.
Considering this, I increase the landlord’s share by a further 5% over and above the 20% set out at paragraph [23], resulting in a total deduction of 25%, or $787.47. I deduct this from the amount claimed by the landlord. Failure to maintain.
The tenant has produced a photograph showing a wet patch on a concrete wall on the stairs, what they claim is water dripping through a light fitting, although this is not visible, and towels on a windowsill. The tenant state they advised the landlord in January 2023, who visited shortly afterward and said that someone would look into the issue, but that no action was taken. The tenant states that leaks appeared in February 2023, that they contacted the landlord, but could not recall the landlord’s response.
The landlord states they visited the property in January and arranged for a tradesperson to inspect the roof. They cannot recall when the tradesperson attended and are unable to produce an invoice, but stated the tradesperson had reported that they could not identify any obvious source of leaking.
The landlord states that following the second report in February 2023, they again sent a tradesperson, who this time identified the possible source of a leak as a roof flashing. As the roof was new, the flashing was replaced under warranty on 11 April 2023.
The tenant stated it was likely that they did not raise the issue of leaks during inspections. The parties state that during the tenancy, property inspections were conducted six monthly, and at two inspections the tenant had not been present. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment. Decision
Neither party is able to provide a reliable chronology. The onus is on the tenant to establish that, once informed of any defect the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Reimbursement for door
The tenant states over the weekend of 22 - 23 June 2024, the front door was damaged by an unknown person from the outside. The hinges and the lock were damaged. On Monday 24 June 2024, the tenant made an online 105 report to police. However, the tenant did not report the matter to the landlord. Instead, concerned that the property was insecure, the tenant stated they arranged for a handyperson to give a quote to secure the door. A quote for $402.50 has been produced. The quote is “to relocate 2 bottom hinges on exterior entrance door, to replace entrance lock and handle”. The quote is dated 19 August 2024.
The landlord stated that they conducted an inspection of the property on 19 August 2024, where they discovered the damage. The tenant was not home at the time. The landlord has produced a photograph taken at the inspection, showing the back of the door and the hinges. Another photograph taken at the end of the tenancy has been produced, again showing the back of the door and the hinges. The landlord states that the door was in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it had been in August 2024.
There was a question as to whether any work had been completed. The Tribunal called the handyperson during the hearing. They were unavailable but their administrative assistant confirmed that the quote had been accepted and the work completed on 20 August 2024. Law
Section 49B states that tenants are liable for any damage intentionally or carelessly caused by themselves of some one at the property with the tenant’s permission.
Section 40(1)(d) states that the tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage or need for repairs. Tenants who do not may be liable for any subsequent damage or loss to the landlord.
Section 45(1)(d) states the landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant repairing the premises where the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the agreement by the tenant, and is likely to cause injury to persons or property, or is otherwise serious and urgent , or where the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair , or made a reasonable attempt to do so. Decision
Analysis of the photographs taken on 19 August 2024 and 09 October 2024, show that the position of the bottom hinge has changed, which appears to confirm that the tradesperson undertook the work as stated on 20 August 2024.
It is unclear why, if the door required immediate securing, the tenant delayed doing so for almost two months. This would suggest that the matter was not as urgent as the tenant has stated and did not affect the safety of the occupants or the property.
Had the tenant advised the landlord on Monday 20 June 2024, the cost incurred by the tenant would have likely been avoided, as would some of the costs incurred after the end of the tenancy.
In this case I am not prepared to make any order for reimbursement. Landlord’s claims Rent
On 02 October 2024, the tenant gave the landlord two days’ notice to end the tenancy under section 56B of the Act, citing domestic violence, with the tenancy ending on 04 October 2024. However, the tenant did not vacate the property until 07 October 2024. The rent summary produced shows that the rent was paid up to 03 October 2024. I award the 4 days’ rent claimed.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
I have viewed the photographs showing the inside of the property contained in the end of tenancy inspection report dated 08 October 2024.
They include close up photographs showing items left in the kitchen, and under the kitchen sink. The carpets have several stains and soiled areas. An old couch remains in the lounge and a wooden planter box on the deck. At the rear of the property, there is some empty boxes, plaster / gib mix, and a wooden pallet.
The tenant states that the couch remains in the property and is being used by the new tenant. The gib mix was used to repair damage. Decision
The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that it has not been left in a reasonably clean condition. The tenant stated they had 4 children under ten and that the staining and soiling was fair wear and tear. I cannot accept that submission. The amount claimed for carpet cleaning is awarded.
Regarding the claim for general cleaning, while I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave some areas reasonably clean and tidy, the evidence does not justify awarding the full amount claimed. The photographs of the bathroom, toilet, shower, and kitchen are insufficient to determine their general state of cleanliness. I award the landlord $150.00 toward cleaning and rubbish removal. Law – damage
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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 for whom they are responsible.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damage Window
The window in bedroom two was broken during the tenancy. A photograph of the window is included in the end of tenancy inspection report. The pre tenancy inspection report does not report any damage to the property, which had been recently renovated. The tenant states that damage was the result of a child throwing a ball inside. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage is the result of carelessness. The amount claimed to repair the window is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. Wall and doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing a partly repaired hole in the wall in bedroom one, a hole in the back of the door in bedroom two, two partly repaired holes in the wall of bedroom four, and three partly repaired holes in the bathroom door.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has produced an invoice for $1,602.07, itemised for materials and labour. It includes the window (awarded above), and the front door, which the landlord states was not economical to repair and was replaced along with the hinges, although the locking mechanism was re used. The invoice also covers damage to the stove, for which the tenant is not liable.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the door was caused by the tenant or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission. Along with the stove, I remove the door from the claim and award the landlord $1,000.00 to repair the damage proved.
Only the damaged areas were repaired, and I make not deduction for betterment. Costs
Both parties have been partly successful. Reimbursing the filing fee to one party would be cancelled by the reimbursement of the other party’s fee, and on that basis no orders are made. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
Section 95A(1A) states that in any proceedings relating to the withdrawal from a tenancy for domestic violence reasons the Tribunal must suppress the name of the tenant and any identifying particulars.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036328 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036328 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions