What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091368 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 5091368?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Fence And Drain: $316.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091368?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11628374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091368 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 5091368?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Fence And Drain: $316.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091368?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11628374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 32 Airfield Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5091368 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091368 — net $538.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$195.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: fence and drain	$316.25	Repairs: fence and drain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$538.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$538.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Faaituala Bartley and Maafi Faaiuaso must pay [The landlord/s] $538.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord sought to advance an oral claim for unpaid water rates invoices at the hearing. This is not noted as a claim raised in the notice of hearing and it is not mentioned in the landlord’s written application. The tenant has not had reasonable notice that the hearing would consider a claim for outgoings and therefore, I declined to hear it. 1
The tenancy ended on 17 October 2024. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves that rent arrears were $3,000.00 on this date. On 25 October 2024, the landlord received a refund of the bond, which was $3,000.00. Therefore, the landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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.

CLEANING

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 2
“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 91(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd 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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the interior was dirty and the lawns were overgrown.
The landlord seeks compensation as follows: a. Lawns and garden maintenance:$195.50 (including GST) b. Internal cleaning:$322.00 (including GST)
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The lawns and garden are overgrown and full of weeds.
The interior of the property is reasonably clean and tidy. No rubbish or personal belongings of the tenant have been left behind at property. It appears to have been vacuumed, mopped and surfaces wiped down.
The landlord claims the windowsills are dirty and the toilets needed to be cleaned. The toilets appear clean from the photographs. There is some dust in the windowsills, but this does not render the property unreasonably clean and tidy.
The exit inspection report records “good condition” next to every item listed.
Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the lawns were overgrown and full of weeds. This is the only basis upon which I find the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $195.50, which represents the cost incurred to attend to the lawns and garden.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for internal cleaning is dismissed.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 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]. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Missing wooden pale from the fence; and b. Broken plastic drain cover.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based on these photographs, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Wooden fence paling removed; and b. Plastic drain cover broken.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $316.25 (including GST) to repair the fence and drain cover. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord gave evidence that the property was newly built at the beginning of the tenancy. 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.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091368 — net $538.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$195.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: fence and drain	$316.25	Repairs: fence and drain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$538.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$538.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Faaituala Bartley and Maafi Faaiuaso must pay [The landlord/s] $538.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord sought to advance an oral claim for unpaid water rates invoices at the hearing. This is not noted as a claim raised in the notice of hearing and it is not mentioned in the landlord’s written application. The tenant has not had reasonable notice that the hearing would consider a claim for outgoings and therefore, I declined to hear it. 1
The tenancy ended on 17 October 2024. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves that rent arrears were $3,000.00 on this date. On 25 October 2024, the landlord received a refund of the bond, which was $3,000.00. Therefore, the landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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.

CLEANING

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 2
“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 91(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd 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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the interior was dirty and the lawns were overgrown.
The landlord seeks compensation as follows: a. Lawns and garden maintenance:$195.50 (including GST) b. Internal cleaning:$322.00 (including GST)
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The lawns and garden are overgrown and full of weeds.
The interior of the property is reasonably clean and tidy. No rubbish or personal belongings of the tenant have been left behind at property. It appears to have been vacuumed, mopped and surfaces wiped down.
The landlord claims the windowsills are dirty and the toilets needed to be cleaned. The toilets appear clean from the photographs. There is some dust in the windowsills, but this does not render the property unreasonably clean and tidy.
The exit inspection report records “good condition” next to every item listed.
Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the lawns were overgrown and full of weeds. This is the only basis upon which I find the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $195.50, which represents the cost incurred to attend to the lawns and garden.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for internal cleaning is dismissed.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 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]. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Missing wooden pale from the fence; and b. Broken plastic drain cover.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based on these photographs, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Wooden fence paling removed; and b. Plastic drain cover broken.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $316.25 (including GST) to repair the fence and drain cover. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for this amount.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord gave evidence that the property was newly built at the beginning of the tenancy. 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.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091368 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8, 32 Airfield Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091368 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8, 32 Airfield Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

CLEANING

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

CLEANING

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions