What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093553 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 5093553?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $546.98 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,574.43 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Side Wall: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $261.62 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $303.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093553?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11752078-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093553 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 5093553?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $546.98 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,574.43 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Side Wall: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $261.62 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $303.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093553?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11752078-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Stewart Place, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093553 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093553 — net $2,763.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 October 2024	$2,574.43	Rent arrears to 7 October 2024
Water rates	$303.27	Water rates
Repairs: Front door	$598.00	Repairs: Front door
Repairs: Side wall	$373.75	Repairs: Side wall
Cleaning	$379.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$149.50	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$546.98	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$261.62	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,763.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,763.55

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mahara Karoria Taiapa must pay [The landlord/s] $2,763.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, 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. RENT ARREARS & WATER RATES
The tenancy ended on 7 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records, which prove rent arrears were $2,574.43 on this date.
The landlord also provided water rates invoices, which prove the tenant owed $303.27 in outstanding water rates at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for $2,574.43. Their claim for outstanding water rates is granted in full for $303.27. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS 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
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” includes any land and appurtenances, other than facilities. 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy applies to the inside and outside of the property.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord also claims the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord submitted invoices for the following amounts: a. Interior cleaning:$379.50 b. Carpet cleaning:$149.50 c. Lawnmowing:$149.50 d. Rubbish removal:$261.62 e. Key/lock replacement: $546.98
I deal with each issue in turn below. Interior cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawnmowing
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. With the exception of the oven, the interior of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord gave evidence that although the interior of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy, the inside of the house smelt very badly of cat urine and faeces. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant kept at least one cat as a pet in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy was 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. terminated due to abandonment by the tenant. The property was closed and not ventilated for some time before the landlord became aware of the tenant’s abandonment. The landlord claims the smell of cat urine and faeces was so overwhelming when they completed the exit inspection that they could not remain inside the property for long periods of time.
The landlord gave evidence that they attempted to get rid of the smell by having the carpet professionally cleaned. Whilst this decreased the smell to some extent, the landlord claims the smell remained and was most likely due to the fact that cat urine was present on other areas of the house besides the carpet. Therefore, the landlord decided to have the property professionally cleaned to eliminate the smell.
The landlord submitted photographs of the lawn taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the lawn is overgrown.
I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding the smell of cat urine and faeces inside the property.
On the basis of the photographs and evidence given by the landlord at the hearing, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawnmowing is granted in full for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$379.50 b. Carpet cleaning:$149.50 c. Lawnmowing:$149.50 Rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the tenant left rubbish and miscellaneous items at the property. A highchair, cardboard boxes and tarpaulin were left outside the property. More boxes and some children’s toys were left in the garage.
I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $261.62. Their claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted in full for this amount. Key/lock replacement
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the keys to the house or garage. Therefore, the landlord had the locks, deadbolts and keys changed. The landlord submitted an invoice for $546.98.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation for $546.98 to change the keys and locks.

DAMAGE

The law

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.
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. Evidence and analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based upon a comparison of these two sets of photographs, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken glass pane in the front door; and b. Large holes in the side wall near the back door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord did not make an insurance claim to repair the damage as the excess was higher than the cost to repair.
The landlord submitted an invoice for repairs totalling: a. Front door:$598.00 b. Side wall near back door:$373.75
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for the above amounts.
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 & SUPPRESSION
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their requires for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093553 — net $2,763.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 October 2024	$2,574.43	Rent arrears to 7 October 2024
Water rates	$303.27	Water rates
Repairs: Front door	$598.00	Repairs: Front door
Repairs: Side wall	$373.75	Repairs: Side wall
Cleaning	$379.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$149.50	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$546.98	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$261.62	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,763.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,763.55

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mahara Karoria Taiapa must pay [The landlord/s] $2,763.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, 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. RENT ARREARS & WATER RATES
The tenancy ended on 7 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records, which prove rent arrears were $2,574.43 on this date.
The landlord also provided water rates invoices, which prove the tenant owed $303.27 in outstanding water rates at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for $2,574.43. Their claim for outstanding water rates is granted in full for $303.27. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS 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
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” includes any land and appurtenances, other than facilities. 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy applies to the inside and outside of the property.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord also claims the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord submitted invoices for the following amounts: a. Interior cleaning:$379.50 b. Carpet cleaning:$149.50 c. Lawnmowing:$149.50 d. Rubbish removal:$261.62 e. Key/lock replacement: $546.98
I deal with each issue in turn below. Interior cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawnmowing
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. With the exception of the oven, the interior of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord gave evidence that although the interior of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy, the inside of the house smelt very badly of cat urine and faeces. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant kept at least one cat as a pet in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy was 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. terminated due to abandonment by the tenant. The property was closed and not ventilated for some time before the landlord became aware of the tenant’s abandonment. The landlord claims the smell of cat urine and faeces was so overwhelming when they completed the exit inspection that they could not remain inside the property for long periods of time.
The landlord gave evidence that they attempted to get rid of the smell by having the carpet professionally cleaned. Whilst this decreased the smell to some extent, the landlord claims the smell remained and was most likely due to the fact that cat urine was present on other areas of the house besides the carpet. Therefore, the landlord decided to have the property professionally cleaned to eliminate the smell.
The landlord submitted photographs of the lawn taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the lawn is overgrown.
I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding the smell of cat urine and faeces inside the property.
On the basis of the photographs and evidence given by the landlord at the hearing, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawnmowing is granted in full for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$379.50 b. Carpet cleaning:$149.50 c. Lawnmowing:$149.50 Rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show the tenant left rubbish and miscellaneous items at the property. A highchair, cardboard boxes and tarpaulin were left outside the property. More boxes and some children’s toys were left in the garage.
I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $261.62. Their claim for compensation for rubbish removal is granted in full for this amount. Key/lock replacement
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the keys to the house or garage. Therefore, the landlord had the locks, deadbolts and keys changed. The landlord submitted an invoice for $546.98.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation for $546.98 to change the keys and locks.

DAMAGE

The law

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.
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. Evidence and analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based upon a comparison of these two sets of photographs, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Broken glass pane in the front door; and b. Large holes in the side wall near the back door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord did not make an insurance claim to repair the damage as the excess was higher than the cost to repair.
The landlord submitted an invoice for repairs totalling: a. Front door:$598.00 b. Side wall near back door:$373.75
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for the above amounts.
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 & SUPPRESSION
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their requires for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093553 — Rent arrears at 3 Stewart Place, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093553 — Rent arrears at 3 Stewart Place, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions