What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5061929 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 5061929?

Rubbish Removal: $3,795.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate Flooring: $1,351.25 awarded to landlord; Painting: $3,105.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Cubicle: $3,105.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061929?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5061929 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 5061929?

Rubbish Removal: $3,795.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate Flooring: $1,351.25 awarded to landlord; Painting: $3,105.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Cubicle: $3,105.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061929?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31C Colombo Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5061929 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061929 — net $11,383.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Rubbish removal and lawns	$3,795.00	Cleaning: Rubbish removal and lawns
Repairs: Shower cubicle	$3,105.00	Repairs: Shower cubicle
Repairs: Laminate flooring	$1,351.25	Repairs: Laminate flooring
Repairs: Painting	$3,105.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,383.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,383.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Maria Tina Sheryl Aroha Wilson-Gage must pay [The landlord/s] $11,383.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Procedural issues.

The landlord attended today’s hearing the tenant did not attend. At the previous hearing on the 2 December 2024, I spoke to the tenant on the phone she confirmed that the phone number I had called her on was her phone number. The tenant said that she was unaware of the hearing and the landlord’s claim. I asked her to confirm her email address and to update her details. The tenant has not done that.
This application was filed more than 2 months after the tenancy ended, the landlord says that this is because they were unable to finalise the claim (the cost of the remedial work) until that time.
The rules for service of an application have recently been amended by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (RTAA).
Section 91A (2)RTA says: If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant—
Section 39 of the RTAA now allows service of by email. It amended s 91A(2)-So that there is a new provision S91A(2)(e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; or
Clause 54 of Schedule 1 AA of the RTAA 2024 says: The amendment made by section 39 of the 2024 Act applies to an application whether or not the application was made before, on, or after the commencement date.
The result of these changes is that it allows me to use the tenants email address for service in the tenancy agreement as an address for service. The tenant has been served with a copy of the notice of hearing at that address and has not attended.
Even if I had not been able to use the email address for service I would have dispensed with service as the tenant was asked to provide updated contact details. She has been texted (on the mobile number she answered at the last hearing) called and emailed by both the Registry and the Applicant and has not responded to any of those calls. I am satisfied that she is aware of today’s hearing and has chosen not to attend.
I have therefore proceeded in her absence. The claims
The landlord has applied for water rates of $462.06, cleaning and rubbish removal of $3795.00 and compensation for repairs to the property causing by tenant damage of $13,302.05 and the filing fee.
At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for water rates, which they say was paid from the bond, and the claim for repairs to the lounge dining room dividers of $2992 plus GST.
This tenancy was a near new 3-bedroom home. The tenant moved in on the 13 June 2023. The landlord was able to conduct one inspection of the property, but after that experienced difficulties in getting access to the property because the tenant would not allow inspections. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended with the tenancy due to end on the 27 May 2024. The landlord completed an exit inspection on the 29 May 2024 and has provided the photographs and videos of that inspection to the Tribunal.
The landlord had received a notification from Council of cats being reported as being locked in the house. When the landlord went to the property, they discovered three cats in the property that had been left by the tenant.
The photographs and the video speak for themselves, they show a property that is full of rubbish and food waste, there is faeces smeared over every surface in the bathroom and one of the bedrooms. There are piles of cat faeces everywhere. The landlord says that the smell was so overpowering that she vomited when she went into the property. Every room in the property was affected. The tenant had made no attempt to clean up and left many of her belongings behind.
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 landlord had to remove all of the rubbish, mow the lawns which were at knee height in some places, and carry out extensive cleaning of the property. The landlord provided me with an invoice from the TRR cleaning services, I am satisfied that the amount of the invoice is reasonable for the work that was required and award the landlord the full amount of that invoice of $3,795.00

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 See section 49B(3)(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.
I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally damaged the walls by smearing faeces on the walls and locking her cats in the home (in particular the bathroom and one of the bedrooms) which resulted in cat urine and faeces throughout those rooms. I am satisfied that as a result of that damage that the landlord had to replace the shower cubicle, which was damaged and heavily contaminated by the faeces and could not be cleaned back to a reasonable condition, and had to replace the laminate flooring and underlay in the bedroom which likewise was damaged and contaminated and had to be replaced.
I am also satisfied that the walls throughout the house had to be painted, because even after cleaning they were soiled, and the house still smelt. I have reduced the painting cost by half to take into account depreciation and betterment.
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. Name suppression and filing fee.
As the landlord has been successful in their claims then I grant them name suppression as requested and award them the filing fee as well.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061929 — net $11,383.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Rubbish removal and lawns	$3,795.00	Cleaning: Rubbish removal and lawns
Repairs: Shower cubicle	$3,105.00	Repairs: Shower cubicle
Repairs: Laminate flooring	$1,351.25	Repairs: Laminate flooring
Repairs: Painting	$3,105.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,383.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,383.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Maria Tina Sheryl Aroha Wilson-Gage must pay [The landlord/s] $11,383.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Procedural issues.

The landlord attended today’s hearing the tenant did not attend. At the previous hearing on the 2 December 2024, I spoke to the tenant on the phone she confirmed that the phone number I had called her on was her phone number. The tenant said that she was unaware of the hearing and the landlord’s claim. I asked her to confirm her email address and to update her details. The tenant has not done that.
This application was filed more than 2 months after the tenancy ended, the landlord says that this is because they were unable to finalise the claim (the cost of the remedial work) until that time.
The rules for service of an application have recently been amended by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (RTAA).
Section 91A (2)RTA says: If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant—
Section 39 of the RTAA now allows service of by email. It amended s 91A(2)-So that there is a new provision S91A(2)(e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; or
Clause 54 of Schedule 1 AA of the RTAA 2024 says: The amendment made by section 39 of the 2024 Act applies to an application whether or not the application was made before, on, or after the commencement date.
The result of these changes is that it allows me to use the tenants email address for service in the tenancy agreement as an address for service. The tenant has been served with a copy of the notice of hearing at that address and has not attended.
Even if I had not been able to use the email address for service I would have dispensed with service as the tenant was asked to provide updated contact details. She has been texted (on the mobile number she answered at the last hearing) called and emailed by both the Registry and the Applicant and has not responded to any of those calls. I am satisfied that she is aware of today’s hearing and has chosen not to attend.
I have therefore proceeded in her absence. The claims
The landlord has applied for water rates of $462.06, cleaning and rubbish removal of $3795.00 and compensation for repairs to the property causing by tenant damage of $13,302.05 and the filing fee.
At today’s hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for water rates, which they say was paid from the bond, and the claim for repairs to the lounge dining room dividers of $2992 plus GST.
This tenancy was a near new 3-bedroom home. The tenant moved in on the 13 June 2023. The landlord was able to conduct one inspection of the property, but after that experienced difficulties in getting access to the property because the tenant would not allow inspections. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended with the tenancy due to end on the 27 May 2024. The landlord completed an exit inspection on the 29 May 2024 and has provided the photographs and videos of that inspection to the Tribunal.
The landlord had received a notification from Council of cats being reported as being locked in the house. When the landlord went to the property, they discovered three cats in the property that had been left by the tenant.
The photographs and the video speak for themselves, they show a property that is full of rubbish and food waste, there is faeces smeared over every surface in the bathroom and one of the bedrooms. There are piles of cat faeces everywhere. The landlord says that the smell was so overpowering that she vomited when she went into the property. Every room in the property was affected. The tenant had made no attempt to clean up and left many of her belongings behind.
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 landlord had to remove all of the rubbish, mow the lawns which were at knee height in some places, and carry out extensive cleaning of the property. The landlord provided me with an invoice from the TRR cleaning services, I am satisfied that the amount of the invoice is reasonable for the work that was required and award the landlord the full amount of that invoice of $3,795.00

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 See section 49B(3)(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.
I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally damaged the walls by smearing faeces on the walls and locking her cats in the home (in particular the bathroom and one of the bedrooms) which resulted in cat urine and faeces throughout those rooms. I am satisfied that as a result of that damage that the landlord had to replace the shower cubicle, which was damaged and heavily contaminated by the faeces and could not be cleaned back to a reasonable condition, and had to replace the laminate flooring and underlay in the bedroom which likewise was damaged and contaminated and had to be replaced.
I am also satisfied that the walls throughout the house had to be painted, because even after cleaning they were soiled, and the house still smelt. I have reduced the painting cost by half to take into account depreciation and betterment.
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. Name suppression and filing fee.
As the landlord has been successful in their claims then I grant them name suppression as requested and award them the filing fee as well.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061929 — Property damage at 31C Colombo Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061929 — Property damage at 31C Colombo Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions