What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103548?

The tribunal order states: Felicity Lakisa must pay Jane Videtta $4,259.22 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5103548?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $33.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,056.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $37.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,580.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103548?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11445895-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103548?

The tribunal order states: Felicity Lakisa must pay Jane Videtta $4,259.22 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5103548?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $33.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,056.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $37.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,580.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103548?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11445895-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room Downstairs, 82 Ngapuhi Road, Remuera, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103548 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103548 — net $4,259.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/01/2025	$2,580.00	Rent arrears to 8/01/2025
Rubbish removal	$380.00	Rubbish removal
Blind replacement	$33.00	Blind replacement
Lock/key replacement	$145.97	Lock/key replacement
Carpet replacement	$1,056.00	Carpet replacement
Curtain replacement	$37.25	Curtain replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,259.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,259.22

Order

Felicity Lakisa must pay Jane Videtta $4,259.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. The remainder of the claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 8/01/2025$2,580.00 Rubbish removal$380.00 Blind replacement$33.00 Lock/key replacement$145.97 Carpet replacement$1,056.00 Curtain replacement$37.25 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,259.22 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,259.22

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In general, the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case the Landlord). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. Preferably photographs and documentary evidence are filed in support.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $3660.00. The landlord advised that prior to the hearing the tenant signed the bond refund form and the bond of $1080.00 has been refunded to the landlord which reduces the rent debt to $2580.00. This amount is ordered.

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

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 tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The kitchen blinds.
The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and proof of the cost of remedying these matters was provided.

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 (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.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to carpet (a) The landlord advised that the carpet is six years old and was damaged by the tenants due to having a dog at the premises. (b) Having considered the evidence I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (c) The landlord provided photographs of the carpet showing damage and a copy of an invoice of $1760.00 for carpet replacement. (d) In calculating compensation, 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. I have taken a lifespan of carpet in rental properties at 15 years, this is based on the upper end of the depreciation guide used. As this carpet is 6 years old, I have depreciated the amount ordered accordingly and order the tenant to pay the sum of $1046.00 in compensation.
Damage to paintwork (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the paintwork in the premises during the tenancy and sought payment of $1940.43 being $1800.00 for their own labour and $140.43 for the paint. An invoice for ceiling paint was supplied and one close up photograph showing paint removed from one corner of a cupboard. (b)There was insufficient evidence filed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the paintwork beyond fair wear and tear requiring re painting of the entire premises. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Damage to curtains (a)The landlord claimed that the curtains were 6 years old and damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s dog and that due to the smell and damage they required replacement. A photograph of a torn curtain was supplied together with a receipt for $149.00 for a replacement set of curtains. (b) I am satisfied that there was damage to the curtains during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. (c) In calculating compensation, 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. I have taken a lifespan of curtains in rental properties at 8 years, this is based on the depreciation guide used by the Tribunal. As these curtains are 6 years old, I have depreciated the amount ordered accordingly and order the tenant to pay 25 percent of the sum claimed being $37.25 in compensation.
Damage to toilet seat (a)The landlord claimed that the toilet seat was cracked and provided an invoice for replacement, however, no photograph of the damage was provided. (b)I am not satisfied that the landlord has filed sufficient evidence to prove that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Lost rent (a)The landlord also claimed compensation for lost rent of $1920.00 while the tenant damage to the premises was being remedied. The landlord stated that the premises could not be advertised for rent until the remediation was complete. (b)The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when considering a claim for lost rent. It is expected that premises may be empty between tenancies whilst landlords undertake maintenance. In this case the tenancy was a long tenancy of over five years so it is likely that maintenance would be required. (c) It is accepted that work was done due to tenant damage, however, not all the landlord claims were proved to the required standard and it is not possible for the Tribunal to assess how much of the time was due directly to the proved claims and further to assess what delay there may have been in finding a tenant even if the premises were advertised immediately. (d)The invoices provided for remedial work done are dated within 2 1/2 weeks of the tenancy ending but the landlord is claiming 4 1/2 weeks in lost rent. (e)Therefore, for the above reasons the Tribunal finds that this claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities.
Because Jane Videtta has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103548 — net $4,259.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/01/2025	$2,580.00	Rent arrears to 8/01/2025
Rubbish removal	$380.00	Rubbish removal
Blind replacement	$33.00	Blind replacement
Lock/key replacement	$145.97	Lock/key replacement
Carpet replacement	$1,056.00	Carpet replacement
Curtain replacement	$37.25	Curtain replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,259.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,259.22

Order

Felicity Lakisa must pay Jane Videtta $4,259.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. The remainder of the claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 8/01/2025$2,580.00 Rubbish removal$380.00 Blind replacement$33.00 Lock/key replacement$145.97 Carpet replacement$1,056.00 Curtain replacement$37.25 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,259.22 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,259.22

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In general, the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case the Landlord). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. Preferably photographs and documentary evidence are filed in support.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $3660.00. The landlord advised that prior to the hearing the tenant signed the bond refund form and the bond of $1080.00 has been refunded to the landlord which reduces the rent debt to $2580.00. This amount is ordered.

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

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 tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The kitchen blinds.
The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and proof of the cost of remedying these matters was provided.

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 (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.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to carpet (a) The landlord advised that the carpet is six years old and was damaged by the tenants due to having a dog at the premises. (b) Having considered the evidence I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (c) The landlord provided photographs of the carpet showing damage and a copy of an invoice of $1760.00 for carpet replacement. (d) In calculating compensation, 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. I have taken a lifespan of carpet in rental properties at 15 years, this is based on the upper end of the depreciation guide used. As this carpet is 6 years old, I have depreciated the amount ordered accordingly and order the tenant to pay the sum of $1046.00 in compensation.
Damage to paintwork (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the paintwork in the premises during the tenancy and sought payment of $1940.43 being $1800.00 for their own labour and $140.43 for the paint. An invoice for ceiling paint was supplied and one close up photograph showing paint removed from one corner of a cupboard. (b)There was insufficient evidence filed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the paintwork beyond fair wear and tear requiring re painting of the entire premises. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Damage to curtains (a)The landlord claimed that the curtains were 6 years old and damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s dog and that due to the smell and damage they required replacement. A photograph of a torn curtain was supplied together with a receipt for $149.00 for a replacement set of curtains. (b) I am satisfied that there was damage to the curtains during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. (c) In calculating compensation, 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. I have taken a lifespan of curtains in rental properties at 8 years, this is based on the depreciation guide used by the Tribunal. As these curtains are 6 years old, I have depreciated the amount ordered accordingly and order the tenant to pay 25 percent of the sum claimed being $37.25 in compensation.
Damage to toilet seat (a)The landlord claimed that the toilet seat was cracked and provided an invoice for replacement, however, no photograph of the damage was provided. (b)I am not satisfied that the landlord has filed sufficient evidence to prove that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Lost rent (a)The landlord also claimed compensation for lost rent of $1920.00 while the tenant damage to the premises was being remedied. The landlord stated that the premises could not be advertised for rent until the remediation was complete. (b)The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when considering a claim for lost rent. It is expected that premises may be empty between tenancies whilst landlords undertake maintenance. In this case the tenancy was a long tenancy of over five years so it is likely that maintenance would be required. (c) It is accepted that work was done due to tenant damage, however, not all the landlord claims were proved to the required standard and it is not possible for the Tribunal to assess how much of the time was due directly to the proved claims and further to assess what delay there may have been in finding a tenant even if the premises were advertised immediately. (d)The invoices provided for remedial work done are dated within 2 1/2 weeks of the tenancy ending but the landlord is claiming 4 1/2 weeks in lost rent. (e)Therefore, for the above reasons the Tribunal finds that this claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities.
Because Jane Videtta has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103548 — Rent arrears at Room Downstairs, 82 Ngapuhi Road, Remuera, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103548 — Rent arrears at Room Downstairs, 82 Ngapuhi Road, Remuera, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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