What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5042994 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 5042994?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $598.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,875.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5042994?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5042994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11658353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5042994 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 5042994?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $598.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,875.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5042994?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5042994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11658353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 261 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5042994 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5042994 — net $3,788.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$2,875.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Heat pump remote replacement	$288.06	Heat pump remote replacement
Lock/key replacement	$598.13	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,788.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,788.19

Both parties attended the hearing today.

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

The tenant was difficult to understand. He was accompanied at the hearing by people from a local community trust, who kindly provided both the tenant and the Tribunal with assistance.

The information available to the Tribunal indicates that the bond of $356.00 has already been refunded by the Bond Centre. Cleaning and Rubbish Removal

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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. I award the rubbish removal and cleaning costs claimed.

A lot of furniture was left behind by the tenant. The landlord removed everything except the fridge, washing machine, table and chairs, and couch (which the tenant did not want). This still left a lot of low-value belongings, clothing, and food, especially in bedroom 1. The bathroom, kitchen, oven, separate toilet, and bedroom 1 needed cleaning.

The tenant returned the keys, but they were a replacement set. Because the previous set of keys had been lost, to make the property secure the landlord had to change the locks.

The heat pump remote was missing at the end of the tenancy and had to be replaced and reprogrammed. Damage to 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.

The landlord claimed repair costs of $499.98 for damage to the walls in the bedroom, lounge, and behind doors. I was unable to identify much if any damage in the exit inspection report. I decline to award repair costs.

The landlord claimed $468.21 for replacement curtains in bedroom 1 and the living room. The landlord said they smelled of cigarettes.

The exit inspection photographs do not show the curtains in obviously poor condition. Professional cleaning might have removed the smell at lower cost. There was no evidence presented to suggest that this was not a viable option. I find that the landlord cannot recover the cost of replacement curtains because this cost could have been mitigated.

The landlord claimed $458.33 for work on a block wall and installing a “...fold down clothesline like to like with other units in the complex”. The tenant said there was no clothesline at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said that the ingoing inspection report, which was not provided, showed a clothesline.

The issue for the Tribunal is not so much whether there was a clothesline, as whether any such clothesline was damaged. The exit inspection report does not identify or show damage to this item. This may therefore be a maintenance item.

I understood the tenant to say that he had been assaulted in the premises, and had been in various forms of respite, emergency, and transitional housing. He indicated that the power was still being used when he was away. The implication was that someone had broken in and was living at the premises. It seems that the premises were not secured until 12 September 2024 when the landlord conducted the exit inspection. The tenant said he left in July.

It is possible that someone trespassed at the premises after the tenant was taken to respite care. However, the available evidence does not establish this as a probability. The landlord said they were not aware of any indications of a break- in. As noted above, it is difficult to see any meaningful damage consistent with criminal activity. As to the poor condition of the premises, the tenant indicated that he had not been feeling well and noted that the mess was in his room and not elsewhere. Filing Fee and Suppression

The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

The landlord is granted name suppression, as requested. Of my own motion I also grant name suppression to the tenant, given that he was assaulted at the property and has since been in emergency and transitional housing. In my view, his privacy interest outweighs the public interest in this case.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5042994 — net $3,788.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$2,875.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Heat pump remote replacement	$288.06	Heat pump remote replacement
Lock/key replacement	$598.13	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,788.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,788.19

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,788.19 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant was difficult to understand. He was accompanied at the hearing by people from a local community trust, who kindly provided both the tenant and the Tribunal with assistance.
The information available to the Tribunal indicates that the bond of $356.00 has already been refunded by the Bond Centre. Cleaning and Rubbish Removal
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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. I award the rubbish removal and cleaning costs claimed.
A lot of furniture was left behind by the tenant. The landlord removed everything except the fridge, washing machine, table and chairs, and couch (which the tenant did not want). This still left a lot of low-value belongings, clothing, and food, especially in bedroom 1. The bathroom, kitchen, oven, separate toilet, and bedroom 1 needed cleaning.
The tenant returned the keys, but they were a replacement set. Because the previous set of keys had been lost, to make the property secure the landlord had to change the locks.
The heat pump remote was missing at the end of the tenancy and had to be replaced and reprogrammed. Damage to 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.
The landlord claimed repair costs of $499.98 for damage to the walls in the bedroom, lounge, and behind doors. I was unable to identify much if any damage in the exit inspection report. I decline to award repair costs.
The landlord claimed $468.21 for replacement curtains in bedroom 1 and the living room. The landlord said they smelled of cigarettes.
The exit inspection photographs do not show the curtains in obviously poor condition. Professional cleaning might have removed the smell at lower cost. There was no evidence presented to suggest that this was not a viable option. I find that the landlord cannot recover the cost of replacement curtains because this cost could have been mitigated.
The landlord claimed $458.33 for work on a block wall and installing a “...fold down clothesline like to like with other units in the complex”. The tenant said there was no clothesline at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said that the ingoing inspection report, which was not provided, showed a clothesline.
The issue for the Tribunal is not so much whether there was a clothesline, as whether any such clothesline was damaged. The exit inspection report does not identify or show damage to this item. This may therefore be a maintenance item.
I understood the tenant to say that he had been assaulted in the premises, and had been in various forms of respite, emergency, and transitional housing. He indicated that the power was still being used when he was away. The implication was that someone had broken in and was living at the premises. It seems that the premises were not secured until 12 September 2024 when the landlord conducted the exit inspection. The tenant said he left in July.
It is possible that someone trespassed at the premises after the tenant was taken to respite care. However, the available evidence does not establish this as a probability. The landlord said they were not aware of any indications of a break- in. As noted above, it is difficult to see any meaningful damage consistent with criminal activity. As to the poor condition of the premises, the tenant indicated that he had not been feeling well and noted that the mess was in his room and not elsewhere. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is granted name suppression, as requested. Of my own motion I also grant name suppression to the tenant, given that he was assaulted at the property and has since been in emergency and transitional housing. In my view, his privacy interest outweighs the public interest in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5042994 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5, 261 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5042994 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5, 261 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions