What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5102031 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 5102031?

Lawns and Garden Work: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,765.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $322.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5102031?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5102031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570205-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5102031 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 5102031?

Lawns and Garden Work: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,765.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $322.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5102031?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5102031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570205-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

49C Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5102031 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5102031 — net $3,196.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$322.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work and transfer of household goods	$759.00	Lawns and Garden work and transfer of household goods
Repairs to damaged walls, doors, skirting boards and kitchen cabinets	$2,765.75	Repairs to damaged walls, doors, skirting boards and kitchen cabinets
Net award	$3,196.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,196.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
Te Paea Rangi-Niu and Katarina Rangi must pay [The landlord/s] $3,196.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

This matter was part heard. Orders for rent arrears and damages for loss of one week’s rent were made on 25 January 2025. 1
The hearing was conducted via telephone. A representative of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal made two attempts to contact each of the tenants by telephone. However, both calls went to voice message. I am satisfied that each tenant has been served notice of the hearing. The tenant has not notified the Tribunal that they were unable to attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The purpose of this hearing was to hear the landlord’s remaining claims for compensation, refund of the balance of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises (including lawns and gardens) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims compensation for: removal of rubbish; moving of the tenant’s possessions which were left in the house to the garage; and lawn and garden work.
The landlord has provided an invoice showing the work performed in relation to this claim and the amount charged. The landlord has also provided photographs showing that there was a significant amount of rubbish that was left at the property. These photographs also show that there was a substantial amount of household goods and personal belongings that were left in the house at the end of the tenancy which were moved to the garage.
The landlord did not have any photographs from the start of the tenancy to show the condition of the garden and lawns at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord provided an invoice showing that the lawns and gardens were tidied by the landlord during the tenancy, even though the landlord was not obliged to do so under the tenancy agreement. 1 The [Applicant/s] v Te Paea Rangi-Niu and Katarina Rangi [2025] NZTT 5102031, 25 January 2025.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report. However, it provided a report (including photographs) from an inspection during the tenancy which showed that the premises were in a good condition at that time. The landlord has also provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing that a significant amount of damage had been done during the tenancy. This included holes in the walls and doors, broken skirting boards, damaged door frames and damaged kitchen cabinets. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage nor has the tenant disproved that the damage was intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I grant the application for name suppression and order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5102031 — net $3,196.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$322.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work and transfer of household goods	$759.00	Lawns and Garden work and transfer of household goods
Repairs to damaged walls, doors, skirting boards and kitchen cabinets	$2,765.75	Repairs to damaged walls, doors, skirting boards and kitchen cabinets
Net award	$3,196.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,196.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
Te Paea Rangi-Niu and Katarina Rangi must pay [The landlord/s] $3,196.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

This matter was part heard. Orders for rent arrears and damages for loss of one week’s rent were made on 25 January 2025. 1
The hearing was conducted via telephone. A representative of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal made two attempts to contact each of the tenants by telephone. However, both calls went to voice message. I am satisfied that each tenant has been served notice of the hearing. The tenant has not notified the Tribunal that they were unable to attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The purpose of this hearing was to hear the landlord’s remaining claims for compensation, refund of the balance of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises (including lawns and gardens) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims compensation for: removal of rubbish; moving of the tenant’s possessions which were left in the house to the garage; and lawn and garden work.
The landlord has provided an invoice showing the work performed in relation to this claim and the amount charged. The landlord has also provided photographs showing that there was a significant amount of rubbish that was left at the property. These photographs also show that there was a substantial amount of household goods and personal belongings that were left in the house at the end of the tenancy which were moved to the garage.
The landlord did not have any photographs from the start of the tenancy to show the condition of the garden and lawns at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord provided an invoice showing that the lawns and gardens were tidied by the landlord during the tenancy, even though the landlord was not obliged to do so under the tenancy agreement. 1 The [Applicant/s] v Te Paea Rangi-Niu and Katarina Rangi [2025] NZTT 5102031, 25 January 2025.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report. However, it provided a report (including photographs) from an inspection during the tenancy which showed that the premises were in a good condition at that time. The landlord has also provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing that a significant amount of damage had been done during the tenancy. This included holes in the walls and doors, broken skirting boards, damaged door frames and damaged kitchen cabinets. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage nor has the tenant disproved that the damage was intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I grant the application for name suppression and order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5102031 — Property damage at 49C Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5102031 — Property damage at 49C Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions