What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5052748 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 5052748?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Oven: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5052748?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5052748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5052748 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 5052748?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Oven: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5052748?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5052748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5052748 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5052748 — net $687.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven	$400.00	such that replacement of the oven was inevitable. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00.
Cleaning: Exterior water blasting	$287.50	Cleaning: Exterior water blasting
Net award	$687.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$687.50

The landlord attended this remote hearing.

The tenants did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenants. The calls were not answered. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.

The matter was part heard on 15 January 2025 with a range of orders made in favour of the landlord. The matter was adjourned to allow the landlord to file supporting evidence relating to damage to the oven and water blasting. The claim relating to damage to the tiles was withdrawn by the landlord.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photos of the exterior of the premises and the deck in particular showing that it had not been left reasonably tidy. An invoice for the water blasting was provided.

The amount ordered is proven.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of insurance is $750.00.

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 oven was caused during the tenancy. The contractors quote refers to the oven glass being damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The balance of the damage to the oven has not been caused by the tenant. I consider that the damage to the oven glass is such that replacement of the oven was inevitable. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00. 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.

The amount ordered is proved.

The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5052748 — net $687.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven	$400.00	such that replacement of the oven was inevitable. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00.
Cleaning: Exterior water blasting	$287.50	Cleaning: Exterior water blasting
Net award	$687.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$687.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Nikita May MCLay and Fahrien Ruruhia Hughes- Watford must pay [The landlord/s] $687.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended this remote hearing.
The tenants did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenants. The calls were not answered. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
The matter was part heard on 15 January 2025 with a range of orders made in favour of the landlord. The matter was adjourned to allow the landlord to file supporting evidence relating to damage to the oven and water blasting. The claim relating to damage to the tiles was withdrawn by the landlord.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photos of the exterior of the premises and the deck in particular showing that it had not been left reasonably tidy. An invoice for the water blasting was provided.
The amount ordered is proven.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of insurance is $750.00.
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 oven was caused during the tenancy. The contractors quote refers to the oven glass being damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The balance of the damage to the oven has not been caused by the tenant. I consider that the damage to the oven glass is such that replacement of the oven was inevitable. The tenant is ordered to pay $400.00. 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.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5052748 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5052748 — Cleanliness

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

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

Frequently asked questions