What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048688?

The tribunal order states: Saimisa Bonita Filipo and Faalili Likisone must pay Slpm Limited $5,763.25

How much money was awarded in case 5048688?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Installing New Garage Door: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610096-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048688?

The tribunal order states: Saimisa Bonita Filipo and Faalili Likisone must pay Slpm Limited $5,763.25

How much money was awarded in case 5048688?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Installing New Garage Door: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610096-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 3 Ririno Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048688 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048688 — net $5,763.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,760.00	Rubbish removal
Installing new garage door	$1,500.00	Installing new garage door
Repairing down pipe	$230.00	Repairing down pipe
Lock/key replacement	$690.00	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs (one window	$316.25	Window repairs (one window
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,763.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,763.25

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Paul Dawson.

I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.

This tenancy began on 27 February 2023 and ended by termination order of this Tribunal made on 16 September 2024 [2024] NZTT 4963853. An order for rent arrears was made as part of that order and the bond was released to the landlord.

The landlord has now filed this application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord included a claim for water rates in this application. I was advised that a water leak rebate has now been received and the claim for water has been withdrawn.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photos showing very large amounts of rubbish left behind both inside and outside the property including beds, couches, a chair, a suitcase, tyres, furniture and various miscellaneous items. The landlord produced an invoice for rubbish removal in the amount of $2,760. I consider the amount claimed for rubbish removal to be reasonable given the amount left behind. The claim for rubbish removal ($2,760.00) is proved.

The landlord sought the sum of $402.50 for cleaning. I accept that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. Some cleaning was inevitably required as the tenants left belongings inside the house and those surfaces would have required clearing and cleaning. However the photos did not reveal any other cleaning required and so I have reduced the amount claimed to the level that has been proven. I order compensation for cleaning in the amount of $200.00.

The landlord sought the sum of $230.00 for “outside lawns and garden clean up”. The ingoing inspection report records that the lawns were mown but that there were numerous weeds. The photos from the end of the tenancy show that the lawns need mowing but I do not consider the tenants to be liable for any additional gardening. I order $40.00 compensation for the lawns.

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had to replace the locks and keys. They seek the sum of $690.00. This claim is proved.

The landlord also sought the sum of $57.50 for replacing light bulbs as light bulb was missing in the bathroom and three were missing from outside. There was no evidence provided showing the light bulbs were missing but, in any event, replacing light bulbs is a maintenance obligation on landlords. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord sought the sum of $57.50 for missing smoke alarms but there was no clear evidence about where these smoke alarms had been or evidence that they were missing at the end of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord sought in addition the sum of $201.25 for “pest control” on the basis that there were fleas present at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photo proving that there were dogs kept at the property but there was no evidence (for example a report from a pest control contractor) proving the presence of fleas. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord also sought the sum of $207.00 for carpet cleaning, but there was not sufficient evidence of the condition of the carpet at the start and end of the tenancy for me to find this claim proved. It is common practice for landlords to clean carpet in between tenancies.

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. Fixing holes and painting interiors

The landlord claimed the sum of $2,587.50 for “fixing holes and painting all interiors”. There were photos from the end of the tenancy showing some scrapes but there were no entry inspection photos showing the condition of the walls at the start of the tenancy.

There is a written inspection report from the start of the tenancy. That report records as follows in respect of the walls: a. Lounge: poor condition - “cream paint. 2x plaster repairs, many gouges and scrapes all over”; b. Kitchen: poor condition - “many gouges, one fixture”; c. Bathroom: good/average condition - “lines on paint where wallpaper gone over/gouges to paint”; d. Hallway: Average condition - “Plaster worn, one patch missing”; e. Laundry” Average condition - “Several gouges to plaster”; f. Bedroom 1: Poor condition - “covered in scratches and scrapes, one plaster repair”. g. Bedroom 2: Average condition - “Many scuffs to plasterwork, plastered by window frame”.

I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. It is clear that the walls were in need of maintenance at the start of the tenancy. The claim for fixing holes and painting is dismissed. Carpentry fixing kitchen cabinets and decks

The landlord said that there was existing damage to the kitchen cabinets and deck but that there was additional damage when the tenants left. The landlord sought the sum of $862.50 for these repairs.

I have reviewed the evidence carefully and do not consider that the landlord has proved that the damage claims occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. There are no photos showing the condition at the start of the tenancy for me to establish the damage at that time. The ingoing inspection report does not refer to the deck but in respect of the kitchen it records: a. Kitchen Cupboards: Poor condition “Moisture damage + mould throughout, some handles missing, plaster repairs”.

The claim for of repairs to the kitchen and decks is dismissed. Drainpipe damage

The landlord said that a downpipe had been damaged during the tenancy. The landlord produced a photo showing the downpipe (near the garage) to be intact at the start of the tenancy but damaged and split at the end of the tenancy. It appears that a car may have hit the downpipe at some stage.

The landlord claimed the sum of $230.00 which I consider reasonable. I order compensation of $230.00. Garage door replacement

The landlord produced photos showing that there had been a garage door at the start of the tenancy but that this had been removed and timber structure had been installed at some stage during the tenancy.

The landlord claimed the sum of $2,012.50 for removing the timbers doors and installing a new garage door. This claim is proved but some deduction is required for depreciation/betterment as the landlord now has a new garage door. I award the sum of $1,500.00. Window repairs

The landlord claimed the sum of $632.50 for repairing two windows. The ingoing inspection report does not record any broken windows, but the outgoing photos show one a broken window. I have therefore awarded half the amount claimed, being $316.25. Hardware – door handles and locks interior

The landlord claimed the sum of $345 for interior door handles and locks. However there is no evidence showing from the start of the tenancy showing the door handles and locks and it is not clear what the landlord is claiming. I note further that the ingoing inspection report records multiple issues with window handles and door handles throughout the house and doors that do not shut.

This claim is dismissed. Stove

The landlord claimed the sum of $920.00 for stove replacement but withdrew this claim at the hearing. Filing fee

Because Slpm Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048688 — net $5,763.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,760.00	Rubbish removal
Installing new garage door	$1,500.00	Installing new garage door
Repairing down pipe	$230.00	Repairing down pipe
Lock/key replacement	$690.00	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs (one window	$316.25	Window repairs (one window
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,763.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,763.25

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Paul Dawson.

I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.

The landlord has now filed this application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord included a claim for water rates in this application. I was advised that a water leak rebate has now been received and the claim for water has been withdrawn.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had to replace the locks and keys. They seek the sum of $690.00. This claim is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord said that there was existing damage to the kitchen cabinets and deck but that there was additional damage when the tenants left. The landlord sought the sum of $862.50 for these repairs.

The claim for of repairs to the kitchen and decks is dismissed. Drainpipe damage

The landlord claimed the sum of $230.00 which I consider reasonable. I order compensation of $230.00. Garage door replacement

This claim is dismissed. Stove

The landlord claimed the sum of $920.00 for stove replacement but withdrew this claim at the hearing. Filing fee

Because Slpm Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048688 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 3 Ririno Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048688 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 3 Ririno Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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