What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050089 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 5050089?

Cleaning: $897.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,348.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $53.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Locks: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $336.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11553522-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050089 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 5050089?

Cleaning: $897.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,348.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $53.57 awarded to landlord; Replace Locks: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $336.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11553522-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 158 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5050089 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050089 — net $4,027.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/09/24	$53.57	Rent arrears to 29/09/24
Water rates	$336.68	Water rates
Cleaning	$897.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Replace locks	$471.50	Replace locks
Repairs (limited to 4 weeks’ market rent	$2,348.00	Repairs (limited to 4 weeks’ market rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,027.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,027.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $336.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Hollymae Carol Manning must pay [The landlord/s] $3,556.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a rent summary which records the tenant owed $53.57 at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also provided Watercare invoices showing the tenant incurred the following charges for the consumption of water and wastewater: a. Invoice 28/12/23 for $18.91. 1 b. Invoice 25/01/24 for $4.71. c. Invoice 29/02/24 for $66.17. d. Invoice 01/05/24 for $52.01. 1 The invoice recorded consumption from 27 November 2023 however the landlord confirmed the property was empty between 27 November 2023 and 4 December 2024 when the tenancy began. e. Invoice 27/05/24 for $33.11. f. Invoice 27/06/24 for $37.81. g. Invoice 25/07/24 for $37.81. h. Invoice 02/09/24 for $50.67. i. Invoice 25/09/24 for $35.48.
The total amount owed in water rates is $336.68. The landlord’s records show the tenant did not make any payments towards water throughout the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 did not return the keys.
The landlord filed an exit inspection report dated 8 October 2024 which shows the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. It also shows rubbish was left throughout the interior of the property. The landlord says the tenant did not return the keys for the front door.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 31 October 2024 from Advance Electric Security Fencing Ltd for $780.00 ex GST (or $897 inc GST) for cleaning, including carpet cleaning, and $200 ex GST (or $230 inc GST) for rubbish removal.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 7 October 2024 from JN Maintenance Limited for $471.50 for new locks and keys for the front door and back door.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought a further $340.00 for a second round of carpet cleaning that was said to be necessary. An invoice dated 5 November 2024 from WOW Carpet Cleaning was filed in support. A further inspection report dated 6 November 2024 was handed up at the hearing to show the condition of the carpet after the second round of carpet cleaning had been completed.
The landlord did not produce evidence to show the condition of the carpet after the first round of carpet cleaning conducted on or about 31 October 2024. The landlord has not proven, to the standard necessary, that a second round of carpet cleaning was necessary. Accordingly, I award only the cost of the first round of carpet cleaning.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: holes in the walls of the lounge, hallway, kitchen and bedrooms, crack in the entrance sliding door glass, damage to the bathroom door, missing door handle to bedroom 1, door missing in bedroom, mirror missing in the bathroom, lightbulbs and smoke alarms needed replacing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord filed an entry inspection report dated 4 October 2023 which shows the condition of the premises shortly before the tenancy commenced. The photos show the above damage had not occurred at that date.
As referred to above, the landlord also filed an exit inspection report dated 8 October 2024. The photos taken during the exit inspection show the damage listed above at [25] was present at that date. I am satisfied the landlord has proven the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice dated 28 October 2024 from SR Investments (NZ) Ltd for $4,000.00 for work done to repair the damage listed at [25]. The landlord also produced several additional invoices for additional work carried out in relation to damage which is said to have occurred during the tenancy.
The total amount sought for damage caused during the tenancy is $9,645.28.
The landlord confirmed the tenant paid income-related rent of $84.00 per week. The landlord states the market rent of the two-bedroom unit is $587.00. As recorded in the tenancy agreement, and confirmed by the landlord at the hearing, the landlord does not hold insurance relevant to the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises.
Pursuant to s49(3)(b)(ii) of the RTA, the tenant’s liability for damage is limited to four weeks’ rent at market rent. At a market rate of $587.00 per week, the tenant’s liability is limited to $2,348.00.
The amounts ordered are proved. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord applied for suppression of their name. As the application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050089 — net $4,027.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/09/24	$53.57	Rent arrears to 29/09/24
Water rates	$336.68	Water rates
Cleaning	$897.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Replace locks	$471.50	Replace locks
Repairs (limited to 4 weeks’ market rent	$2,348.00	Repairs (limited to 4 weeks’ market rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,027.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,027.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $336.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Hollymae Carol Manning must pay [The landlord/s] $3,556.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a rent summary which records the tenant owed $53.57 at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also provided Watercare invoices showing the tenant incurred the following charges for the consumption of water and wastewater: a. Invoice 28/12/23 for $18.91. 1 b. Invoice 25/01/24 for $4.71. c. Invoice 29/02/24 for $66.17. d. Invoice 01/05/24 for $52.01. 1 The invoice recorded consumption from 27 November 2023 however the landlord confirmed the property was empty between 27 November 2023 and 4 December 2024 when the tenancy began. e. Invoice 27/05/24 for $33.11. f. Invoice 27/06/24 for $37.81. g. Invoice 25/07/24 for $37.81. h. Invoice 02/09/24 for $50.67. i. Invoice 25/09/24 for $35.48.
The total amount owed in water rates is $336.68. The landlord’s records show the tenant did not make any payments towards water throughout the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 did not return the keys.
The landlord filed an exit inspection report dated 8 October 2024 which shows the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. It also shows rubbish was left throughout the interior of the property. The landlord says the tenant did not return the keys for the front door.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 31 October 2024 from Advance Electric Security Fencing Ltd for $780.00 ex GST (or $897 inc GST) for cleaning, including carpet cleaning, and $200 ex GST (or $230 inc GST) for rubbish removal.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 7 October 2024 from JN Maintenance Limited for $471.50 for new locks and keys for the front door and back door.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought a further $340.00 for a second round of carpet cleaning that was said to be necessary. An invoice dated 5 November 2024 from WOW Carpet Cleaning was filed in support. A further inspection report dated 6 November 2024 was handed up at the hearing to show the condition of the carpet after the second round of carpet cleaning had been completed.
The landlord did not produce evidence to show the condition of the carpet after the first round of carpet cleaning conducted on or about 31 October 2024. The landlord has not proven, to the standard necessary, that a second round of carpet cleaning was necessary. Accordingly, I award only the cost of the first round of carpet cleaning.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: holes in the walls of the lounge, hallway, kitchen and bedrooms, crack in the entrance sliding door glass, damage to the bathroom door, missing door handle to bedroom 1, door missing in bedroom, mirror missing in the bathroom, lightbulbs and smoke alarms needed replacing. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord filed an entry inspection report dated 4 October 2023 which shows the condition of the premises shortly before the tenancy commenced. The photos show the above damage had not occurred at that date.
As referred to above, the landlord also filed an exit inspection report dated 8 October 2024. The photos taken during the exit inspection show the damage listed above at [25] was present at that date. I am satisfied the landlord has proven the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice dated 28 October 2024 from SR Investments (NZ) Ltd for $4,000.00 for work done to repair the damage listed at [25]. The landlord also produced several additional invoices for additional work carried out in relation to damage which is said to have occurred during the tenancy.
The total amount sought for damage caused during the tenancy is $9,645.28.
The landlord confirmed the tenant paid income-related rent of $84.00 per week. The landlord states the market rent of the two-bedroom unit is $587.00. As recorded in the tenancy agreement, and confirmed by the landlord at the hearing, the landlord does not hold insurance relevant to the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises.
Pursuant to s49(3)(b)(ii) of the RTA, the tenant’s liability for damage is limited to four weeks’ rent at market rent. At a market rate of $587.00 per week, the tenant’s liability is limited to $2,348.00.
The amounts ordered are proved. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord applied for suppression of their name. As the application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050089 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 158 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050089 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 158 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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