What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5057688?

The tribunal order states: Zara Margaret O'shea must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5057688?

Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Glass: $1,242.00 awarded to landlord; Oven: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $939.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11776272-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5057688?

The tribunal order states: Zara Margaret O'shea must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5057688?

Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Glass: $1,242.00 awarded to landlord; Oven: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $939.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11776272-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Manhattan Heights, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5057688 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5057688 — net $2,905.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$207.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$390.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$939.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: glass	$1,242.00	Repairs: glass
Repairs: walls	$1,150.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: oven	$750.00	Repairs: oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,905.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,905.50

Order

Zara Margaret O'shea must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Xu $2,905.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 (5615094-002) to Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Xu immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1
The term “premises” includes and land and appurtenances, other than facilities. 2 The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy applies to the inside and outside of the property.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. The inside and outside of the property was left in a very poor state. Rubbish, furniture and miscellaneous items were left behind by the tenant. The property had clearly not been cleaned and the lawns were overgrown.
I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted invoices for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing. The landlord’s claim for compensation for these items is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$700.00 b. Rubbish removal:$939.50 c. Lawns:$207.00
The landlord gave further evidence that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The landlord submitted an invoice for $390.00 to replace the keys and locks. I grant the landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount.

DAMAGE

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. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
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 landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based upon a comparison of these photographs, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken glass in a number of external and internal doors b. Broken stovetop c. Holes in the walls d. Scribbles and drawings on the walls
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted invoices for repairs and replacement of the stove. The landlord gave evidence that the stove was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and replaced with a second-hand one.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for repairs and replacement of the stove is granted for the following amounts: a. Glass:$1,242.00 b. Stove:$750.00 c. Walls:$1,150.00
All of the amounts ordered above 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.

FILING FEE

Because Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Xu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5057688 — net $2,905.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$207.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$390.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$939.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: glass	$1,242.00	Repairs: glass
Repairs: walls	$1,150.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: oven	$750.00	Repairs: oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,905.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,905.50

Order

Zara Margaret O'shea must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Xu $2,905.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 (5615094-002) to Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Xu immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1
The term “premises” includes and land and appurtenances, other than facilities. 2 The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy applies to the inside and outside of the property.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. The inside and outside of the property was left in a very poor state. Rubbish, furniture and miscellaneous items were left behind by the tenant. The property had clearly not been cleaned and the lawns were overgrown.
I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted invoices for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing. The landlord’s claim for compensation for these items is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$700.00 b. Rubbish removal:$939.50 c. Lawns:$207.00
The landlord gave further evidence that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The landlord submitted an invoice for $390.00 to replace the keys and locks. I grant the landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount.

DAMAGE

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. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
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 landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based upon a comparison of these photographs, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken glass in a number of external and internal doors b. Broken stovetop c. Holes in the walls d. Scribbles and drawings on the walls
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted invoices for repairs and replacement of the stove. The landlord gave evidence that the stove was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and replaced with a second-hand one.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for repairs and replacement of the stove is granted for the following amounts: a. Glass:$1,242.00 b. Stove:$750.00 c. Walls:$1,150.00
All of the amounts ordered above 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.

FILING FEE

Because Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Xu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057688 — Property damage at 4 Manhattan Heights, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057688 — Property damage at 4 Manhattan Heights, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions