What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5063288?

The tribunal order states: Aliyah Aokuso to pay Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Wei

How much money was awarded in case 5063288?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $563.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $755.55 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $207.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063288?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11309009-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5063288?

The tribunal order states: Aliyah Aokuso to pay Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Wei

How much money was awarded in case 5063288?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $563.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $755.55 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $207.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063288?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11309009-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 117 Finlayson Avenue, Clendon Park, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5063288 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5063288 — net $1,875.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$207.90	Water rates
Cleaning	$563.50	Cleaning
Repairs: doors	$755.55	Repairs: doors
Carpet Cleaning	$322.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,875.95
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,875.95

Order

Aliyah Aokuso to pay Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Wei Yang $1,875.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (6003944-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Wei Yang: $1,875.95 Aliyah Aokuso: $404.05

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a cross-application disputing the amount of compensation sought by the landlord and requesting a refund of the bond.
The landlord’s written application included claims for outstanding water rates and cleaning. At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims for these matters and agreed to pay the landlord $207.90 for water rates and $563.50 for cleaning. Therefore, the hearing focussed solely on the landlord’s claim the tenant damaged the doors, walls and carpet during the tenancy.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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.
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.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage in the following areas: a. Living room door, master bedroom door and spare bedroom door; b. Walls in the master bedroom; and c. Carpet in the lounge and spare bedroom.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Living room door, master bedroom door and spare bedroom door
The landlord submitted photographs of the doors in the living room and master bedroom. These photographs show dents in the doors, which the tenant accepts occurred during the tenancy. In respect of the damage to the living room door, the tenant gave evidence that they accidentally hit it when moving their desk. In respect of the damage to the wardrobe door in the master bedroom, the tenant could not recall how it occurred.
The landlord also claims the tenant damaged the wardrobe door in another bedroom but did not have photographs of this. The tenant accepts that the wardrobe door in the spare bedroom was damaged during the tenancy but could not recall how it occurred.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord and admissions by the tenant, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the following doors were damaged during the tenancy: a. Living room door; b. Wardrobe door in master bedroom; and c. Wardrobe door in spare bedroom.
The tenant agreed that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and accepted responsibility.
The landlord provided an invoice to repair the doors for $657.00 plus GST ($755.55 total). The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the damaged doors is granted in full for $755.55. Walls in master bedroom
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which shows damage to the walls in the master bedroom. The landlord seeks compensation of $952.00 + GST ($1,094.80 total) to repair the walls in the master bedroom and provided an invoice for this amount.
The tenant denies carelessly or intentionally damaging the walls in the master bedroom and claims the damage is fair wear and tear.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show there was some pre-existing damage to the walls in the master bedroom (see photographs 37, 38 and 39 from the pre- inspection report incorrectly labelled “lounge”, but both parties agreed was the master bedroom at the hearing, as well as photograph 46).
One of the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy shows peeling paint beside a power switch. This damage is present in photograph 37 of the pre-inspection report and therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that it occurred during the tenancy. I also consider any increase to this pre-existing damage to be a result of fair wear and tear, rather than an intentional or careless act on behalf of the tenant.
The second photograph taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy shows two small scratches to one of the walls in the master bedroom. I consider the nature of this damage to be fair wear and tear, rather than intentional or careless damage. This is because of the size of the damage and length of the tenancy. I consider the two scratches to be small – moderate in size. This tenancy was 3 years and 8 months long. A small number of minor marks to the walls are expected as part of everyday living in a property over time.
The third and fourth photographs provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show some damage to the walls in the master bedroom. The nature of the damage is not clear from the photographs. The tenant claims the damage is peeling paint and is a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant denies carelessly or intentionally damaging the walls. Carmen Mitchie, the property manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord, claims the damage is not peeling paint, but dents to the wall.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the damage in the third and fourth photographs provided by the landlord is peeling paint, rather than dents to the walls. Ms Mitchie was not the property manager at the time and did not complete the exit inspection. The relevant property manager has since left JRL Rental Investment Limited and was not called as a witness to give evidence. Ms Mitchie did not see the damage herself and her assessment is based solely on the photographs, which are not clear. On the other hand, the tenant lived at the property and saw the damage firsthand. I found the tenant’s evidence on other aspects of the case to be credible and reliable. The tenant readily accepted responsibility for other parts of the landlord’s claim. I have no reason to consider the tenant is lying about the nature of the damage to the walls in the master bedroom. For these reasons, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage in the third and fourth photographs provided by the landlord is peeling paint, rather than dents.
Having determined that the nature of the damage is most likely peeling paint, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that it is the result of a careless or intentional act on behalf of the tenant. The pre-inspection photographs show that the paint in the master bedroom was peeling in other areas at the start of the tenancy (see photographs 37, 38 and 39 from the pre- inspection report incorrectly labelled “lounge”, but both parties agreed was the master bedroom at the hearing, as well as photograph 46). The tenant also denied intentionally or carelessly damaging the walls in the master bedroom. Therefore, I find it more likely that the damage is the result of fair wear and tear over time.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the walls of the master bedroom is dismissed. Carpet
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for two stains to the carpet, one in the lounge and one in the bedroom/study. The landlord also claims that the carpet smelt of pet urine at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of the relevant areas of the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. A stain is apparent in the bedroom/study, but not the lounge.
The tenant accepts that they kept a puppy in the house during the tenancy, which they were not allowed to do. The tenant accepts responsibility for the stain to the carpet in the bedroom/study and gave evidence that they tried to have this removed by paying for a professional carpet clean. The tenant gave evidence that the stain faded significantly, but accepts it was still apparent at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also gave evidence that they were responsible for a stain to the carpet in the lounge, but claims this was removed at the end of the tenancy with the professional carpet clean.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for staining the carpet in the bedroom/study. Given the tenant’s admission that they kept a puppy at the address, I am also convinced that the carpet most likely smelt and required a pet urine treatment. I accept the tenant’s evidence that any stain to the carpet in the lounge was remedied and removed at the end of the tenancy. It is not apparent in the photograph provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is granted for an adjusted amount of $322.00, which represents two thirds of the total invoice claimed of $483.00. This reflects my finding that the tenant is responsible for staining the carpet in the spare bedroom/study and any smell. In respect of the lounge, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy was remedied at the end. No stain is apparent in the photograph provided by the landlord.
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 Auckland Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5063288 — net $1,875.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$207.90	Water rates
Cleaning	$563.50	Cleaning
Repairs: doors	$755.55	Repairs: doors
Carpet Cleaning	$322.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,875.95
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,875.95

Order

Aliyah Aokuso to pay Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Wei Yang $1,875.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (6003944-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Wei Yang: $1,875.95 Aliyah Aokuso: $404.05

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a cross-application disputing the amount of compensation sought by the landlord and requesting a refund of the bond.
The landlord’s written application included claims for outstanding water rates and cleaning. At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claims for these matters and agreed to pay the landlord $207.90 for water rates and $563.50 for cleaning. Therefore, the hearing focussed solely on the landlord’s claim the tenant damaged the doors, walls and carpet during the tenancy.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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.
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.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage in the following areas: a. Living room door, master bedroom door and spare bedroom door; b. Walls in the master bedroom; and c. Carpet in the lounge and spare bedroom.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Living room door, master bedroom door and spare bedroom door
The landlord submitted photographs of the doors in the living room and master bedroom. These photographs show dents in the doors, which the tenant accepts occurred during the tenancy. In respect of the damage to the living room door, the tenant gave evidence that they accidentally hit it when moving their desk. In respect of the damage to the wardrobe door in the master bedroom, the tenant could not recall how it occurred.
The landlord also claims the tenant damaged the wardrobe door in another bedroom but did not have photographs of this. The tenant accepts that the wardrobe door in the spare bedroom was damaged during the tenancy but could not recall how it occurred.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord and admissions by the tenant, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the following doors were damaged during the tenancy: a. Living room door; b. Wardrobe door in master bedroom; and c. Wardrobe door in spare bedroom.
The tenant agreed that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and accepted responsibility.
The landlord provided an invoice to repair the doors for $657.00 plus GST ($755.55 total). The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the damaged doors is granted in full for $755.55. Walls in master bedroom
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which shows damage to the walls in the master bedroom. The landlord seeks compensation of $952.00 + GST ($1,094.80 total) to repair the walls in the master bedroom and provided an invoice for this amount.
The tenant denies carelessly or intentionally damaging the walls in the master bedroom and claims the damage is fair wear and tear.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs show there was some pre-existing damage to the walls in the master bedroom (see photographs 37, 38 and 39 from the pre- inspection report incorrectly labelled “lounge”, but both parties agreed was the master bedroom at the hearing, as well as photograph 46).
One of the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy shows peeling paint beside a power switch. This damage is present in photograph 37 of the pre-inspection report and therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that it occurred during the tenancy. I also consider any increase to this pre-existing damage to be a result of fair wear and tear, rather than an intentional or careless act on behalf of the tenant.
The second photograph taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy shows two small scratches to one of the walls in the master bedroom. I consider the nature of this damage to be fair wear and tear, rather than intentional or careless damage. This is because of the size of the damage and length of the tenancy. I consider the two scratches to be small – moderate in size. This tenancy was 3 years and 8 months long. A small number of minor marks to the walls are expected as part of everyday living in a property over time.
The third and fourth photographs provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show some damage to the walls in the master bedroom. The nature of the damage is not clear from the photographs. The tenant claims the damage is peeling paint and is a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant denies carelessly or intentionally damaging the walls. Carmen Mitchie, the property manager who attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord, claims the damage is not peeling paint, but dents to the wall.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the damage in the third and fourth photographs provided by the landlord is peeling paint, rather than dents to the walls. Ms Mitchie was not the property manager at the time and did not complete the exit inspection. The relevant property manager has since left JRL Rental Investment Limited and was not called as a witness to give evidence. Ms Mitchie did not see the damage herself and her assessment is based solely on the photographs, which are not clear. On the other hand, the tenant lived at the property and saw the damage firsthand. I found the tenant’s evidence on other aspects of the case to be credible and reliable. The tenant readily accepted responsibility for other parts of the landlord’s claim. I have no reason to consider the tenant is lying about the nature of the damage to the walls in the master bedroom. For these reasons, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage in the third and fourth photographs provided by the landlord is peeling paint, rather than dents.
Having determined that the nature of the damage is most likely peeling paint, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that it is the result of a careless or intentional act on behalf of the tenant. The pre-inspection photographs show that the paint in the master bedroom was peeling in other areas at the start of the tenancy (see photographs 37, 38 and 39 from the pre- inspection report incorrectly labelled “lounge”, but both parties agreed was the master bedroom at the hearing, as well as photograph 46). The tenant also denied intentionally or carelessly damaging the walls in the master bedroom. Therefore, I find it more likely that the damage is the result of fair wear and tear over time.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the walls of the master bedroom is dismissed. Carpet
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for two stains to the carpet, one in the lounge and one in the bedroom/study. The landlord also claims that the carpet smelt of pet urine at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of the relevant areas of the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. A stain is apparent in the bedroom/study, but not the lounge.
The tenant accepts that they kept a puppy in the house during the tenancy, which they were not allowed to do. The tenant accepts responsibility for the stain to the carpet in the bedroom/study and gave evidence that they tried to have this removed by paying for a professional carpet clean. The tenant gave evidence that the stain faded significantly, but accepts it was still apparent at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also gave evidence that they were responsible for a stain to the carpet in the lounge, but claims this was removed at the end of the tenancy with the professional carpet clean.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for staining the carpet in the bedroom/study. Given the tenant’s admission that they kept a puppy at the address, I am also convinced that the carpet most likely smelt and required a pet urine treatment. I accept the tenant’s evidence that any stain to the carpet in the lounge was remedied and removed at the end of the tenancy. It is not apparent in the photograph provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is granted for an adjusted amount of $322.00, which represents two thirds of the total invoice claimed of $483.00. This reflects my finding that the tenant is responsible for staining the carpet in the spare bedroom/study and any smell. In respect of the lounge, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy was remedied at the end. No stain is apparent in the photograph provided by the landlord.
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 Auckland Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063288 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 117 Finlayson Avenue, Clendon Park, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063288 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 117 Finlayson Avenue, Clendon Park, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions