What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048028?

The tribunal order states: Bradley John and Barbara McGrath must pay Aery Investments Limited $54.53

How much money was awarded in case 5048028?

Cleaning: $625.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $176.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Damge: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $476.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048028?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11428423-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048028?

The tribunal order states: Bradley John and Barbara McGrath must pay Aery Investments Limited $54.53

How much money was awarded in case 5048028?

Cleaning: $625.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $176.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Damge: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $476.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048028?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11428423-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Forbes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048028 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048028 — net $54.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$176.53	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$476.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: Recycling	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Recycling
Rubbish removal: Kitchen items	$20.00	Rubbish removal: Kitchen items
Cleaning	$625.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Wall damge	$320.00	Repairs: Wall damge
Repairs: Window damage	$30.00	Repairs: Window damage
Dog damage to grounds	$60.00	Dog damage to grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$54.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$54.53

Order

Bradley John and Barbara McGrath must pay Aery Investments Limited $54.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3480198-007) to Aery Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Jones appeared as director of Aery Investments and Mr John appeared on behalf of the tenants.
The tenancy ended on 26 November 2024 and a Tenancy Tribunal order dated 23 December 2024 awarded rent arrears and water rates to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that he had to leave quickly and asked to return the premises to attend to some end of tenancy responsibilities but was not allowed to by the landlord. As stated in the hearing the tenant’s responsibility is to have the cleaning and removal of items completed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord charged $30.00 per hour for what they claimed was the less skilled work required and $40.00 for the more technical repairs they undertook. An itemised account of the works, times and photographs were provided to support most claims. These hourly rates are a lot less than a registered professional would charge and I find that they are reasonable.

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 tenant left without doing any cleaning and left a lot of items in the premises and grounds.
The kitchen, bathroom, oven and floors all required cleaning and mopping. Some cleaning of walls was claimed but there was not enough evidence provided to support this. Based on the evidence provided for cleaning $625.00 is awarded.
The tenant did not return the key immediately and the amount claimed for lock replacement is awarded.
The tenant had left behind items in the kitchen and bedrooms. Outside on the deck there was play equipment and more items in the garden shed. There were some large storage items that had to be removed and a large mat. The amount claimed for the labour to remove the items and dump fees are awarded.
A small amount is awarded for the recycled items left in the kitchen as there was not a lot of evidence establishing what was recycled.
The 4 recycling bins were left full of mixed rubbish and the landlord claimed for 2 hours to sort through the rubbish and put the bins out for general collection.
It was not established that the items under the deck belonged to the tenant and this and the amount claimed for disposal of metal rubbish is not awarded.
The premises had a large section being 912 square metres with a garden running down the length of it, planter boxes and a vegetable garden box. The end of tenancy photographs shows everything overgrown and long lawns.
The landlord claimed for 3 lawn mowings to bring the grass down to a reasonable level and for the cost to dispose of grass waste. There was a separate weeding claim made. No invoices for garden waste dump fees were provided.
The parties debated who was responsible for the garden maintenance and planter boxes with the tenant claiming that the landlord had said at the start of the tenancy that he would take over this job. The landlord said his only offer was remove leaves if the amount became too overwhelming.
The premises were very overgrown and without any evidence of a separate gardening agreement I find that this is the tenants responsibility. The amount ordered are reduced due to no dump fee invoices being provided.
There were two dogs at the premises and the amount claimed to fix and reseed where the dog had dug the garden is awarded as claimed.
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 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: There were two holes in the lounge, one badly patched and a window frame split where a window stay was attached.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage to the lounge wall saying it previously had a crack and a child leaned on it while moving which put a hole in it. There was no evidence of a previous crack and the landlord said that he was not told of this damage. I find this is careless damage.
Two damaged window frames were claimed but there was only evidence of one provided. The tenant said that this was due to the age of the premises, and they did not do it.
The crack in the frame was substantial and is more than fear wear and tear. I find that this is careless damage and the costs to repair damage to the walls and one window frame is awarded.
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.
Because Aery Investments Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048028 — net $54.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$176.53	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$476.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: Recycling	$60.00	Rubbish removal: Recycling
Rubbish removal: Kitchen items	$20.00	Rubbish removal: Kitchen items
Cleaning	$625.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Wall damge	$320.00	Repairs: Wall damge
Repairs: Window damage	$30.00	Repairs: Window damage
Dog damage to grounds	$60.00	Dog damage to grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$54.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$54.53

Order

Bradley John and Barbara McGrath must pay Aery Investments Limited $54.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3480198-007) to Aery Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Jones appeared as director of Aery Investments and Mr John appeared on behalf of the tenants.
The tenancy ended on 26 November 2024 and a Tenancy Tribunal order dated 23 December 2024 awarded rent arrears and water rates to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that he had to leave quickly and asked to return the premises to attend to some end of tenancy responsibilities but was not allowed to by the landlord. As stated in the hearing the tenant’s responsibility is to have the cleaning and removal of items completed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord charged $30.00 per hour for what they claimed was the less skilled work required and $40.00 for the more technical repairs they undertook. An itemised account of the works, times and photographs were provided to support most claims. These hourly rates are a lot less than a registered professional would charge and I find that they are reasonable.

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 tenant left without doing any cleaning and left a lot of items in the premises and grounds.
The kitchen, bathroom, oven and floors all required cleaning and mopping. Some cleaning of walls was claimed but there was not enough evidence provided to support this. Based on the evidence provided for cleaning $625.00 is awarded.
The tenant did not return the key immediately and the amount claimed for lock replacement is awarded.
The tenant had left behind items in the kitchen and bedrooms. Outside on the deck there was play equipment and more items in the garden shed. There were some large storage items that had to be removed and a large mat. The amount claimed for the labour to remove the items and dump fees are awarded.
A small amount is awarded for the recycled items left in the kitchen as there was not a lot of evidence establishing what was recycled.
The 4 recycling bins were left full of mixed rubbish and the landlord claimed for 2 hours to sort through the rubbish and put the bins out for general collection.
It was not established that the items under the deck belonged to the tenant and this and the amount claimed for disposal of metal rubbish is not awarded.
The premises had a large section being 912 square metres with a garden running down the length of it, planter boxes and a vegetable garden box. The end of tenancy photographs shows everything overgrown and long lawns.
The landlord claimed for 3 lawn mowings to bring the grass down to a reasonable level and for the cost to dispose of grass waste. There was a separate weeding claim made. No invoices for garden waste dump fees were provided.
The parties debated who was responsible for the garden maintenance and planter boxes with the tenant claiming that the landlord had said at the start of the tenancy that he would take over this job. The landlord said his only offer was remove leaves if the amount became too overwhelming.
The premises were very overgrown and without any evidence of a separate gardening agreement I find that this is the tenants responsibility. The amount ordered are reduced due to no dump fee invoices being provided.
There were two dogs at the premises and the amount claimed to fix and reseed where the dog had dug the garden is awarded as claimed.
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 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: There were two holes in the lounge, one badly patched and a window frame split where a window stay was attached.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage to the lounge wall saying it previously had a crack and a child leaned on it while moving which put a hole in it. There was no evidence of a previous crack and the landlord said that he was not told of this damage. I find this is careless damage.
Two damaged window frames were claimed but there was only evidence of one provided. The tenant said that this was due to the age of the premises, and they did not do it.
The crack in the frame was substantial and is more than fear wear and tear. I find that this is careless damage and the costs to repair damage to the walls and one window frame is awarded.
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.
Because Aery Investments Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048028 — Cleanliness at 32 Forbes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048028 — Cleanliness at 32 Forbes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions