How much money was awarded in case 5117249?

Cleaning: $1,252.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $399.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,037.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $588.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117249?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11362888-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5117249?

Cleaning: $1,252.48 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $399.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,037.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $588.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117249?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11362888-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117249 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117249 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117249 — net $2,704.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 December 2024	$2,037.14	Rent arrears to 2 December 2024
Cleaning: including carpets and upstairs blinds	$1,252.48	Cleaning: including carpets and upstairs blinds
Locks & keys, garage remotes, rubbish removal	$588.90	Locks & keys, garage remotes, rubbish removal
Window repairs	$399.05	Window repairs
Carpet damage	$150.00	Carpet damage
Curtain damage	$50.00	Curtain damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,704.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,704.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.

Christopher Maher must pay [The landlord/s] $2,704.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The claim for the cost to test the premises for methamphetamine and to repair a kitchen cupboard door is withdrawn.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Layton and Ms Ramshaw attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant, Mr Maher, did not attend.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Ms Layton confirmed at the hearing that the claim for cost to test the premises for methamphetamine and to repair a kitchen cupboard door can be withdrawn.

How much is owed for rent?

Ms Layton said that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy that ended on 2 December 2024 and the landlord claims rent of $2,537.14 up until that date. However, up until 13 September 2024, Mr Maher was one of two named tenants. The other tenant withdrew from the tenancy because of family violence. This means that pursuant to section 56A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) Mr Maher is entitled to a reduction in rent payable for two weeks by 50% ($500.00) from the date of the withdrawal. This amount is therefore deducted from the amount claimed.

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

I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises (including the carpets and two upstairs blinds) reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish/belongings, and did not return all keys and security devices as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The amounts claimed have been established by the production of invoices. The amount claimed to recode the garage door remotes has been reduced because it includes the servicing of the garage door. There is insufficient evidence to establish that this work was required due to any damage caused by the tenant or others at the premises with his permission.

The landlord also claimed the cost ($90.51) to tidy the gardens. However, that work has not yet been done and I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the gardens were not left reasonably tidy, taking into account the level of tidiness at the commencement of the tenancy. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the following damage occurred during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it: • Installation of a cat door in the lounge window by the tenant that has caused the glass to crack; • Damage to the lounge curtains, probably by a cat; and • Stains on the carpets in two bedrooms that could not be removed by cleaning.

The amounts ordered to replace the lounge window glass has been established by the production of an invoice.

The landlord claims the sum of $1,750.00 to have the carpets in two bedrooms replaced. The amount claimed is based on a quote and the landlord (who has moved back into the premises) has not yet had the work done. The carpets were approximately 8 years old and there is a record of some damage (wrinkling of the carpet) in one bedroom.

The stains are not large, and the photographs do not indicate that they are particularly noticeable. I am therefore not persuaded that the stains have so badly damaged the carpets that they require replacement, particularly given the age and condition of the carpets (carpets in bedrooms are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring replacement). In the circumstances I consider a fair sum to compensate the landlords for the damage to the carpets is $150.00.

The landlord provided a quote totalling $1966.50 to replace the lounge curtains. The curtains were 8 years old and therefore considered to be at or near the end of their useful life (curtains are expected to last approximately 8 years before requiring replacement). The quote provided to support the amount claimed was based on the curtains being tailor made to fit the window. However, Ms Layton said that they do not need to be specially made and the landlord has ordered new curtains from Spotlight, but no evidence was provided as to the cost of the purchase. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider $50.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the curtains.

The landlord has been mostly successful in his claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlord applied, in his application, for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The landlord has been substantially successful in his claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117249 — net $2,704.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 December 2024	$2,037.14	Rent arrears to 2 December 2024
Cleaning: including carpets and upstairs blinds	$1,252.48	Cleaning: including carpets and upstairs blinds
Locks & keys, garage remotes, rubbish removal	$588.90	Locks & keys, garage remotes, rubbish removal
Window repairs	$399.05	Window repairs
Carpet damage	$150.00	Carpet damage
Curtain damage	$50.00	Curtain damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,704.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,704.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
Christopher Maher must pay [The landlord/s] $2,704.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The claim for the cost to test the premises for methamphetamine and to repair a kitchen cupboard door is withdrawn.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Layton and Ms Ramshaw attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant, Mr Maher, did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Ms Layton confirmed at the hearing that the claim for cost to test the premises for methamphetamine and to repair a kitchen cupboard door can be withdrawn.

How much is owed for rent?

Ms Layton said that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy that ended on 2 December 2024 and the landlord claims rent of $2,537.14 up until that date. However, up until 13 September 2024, Mr Maher was one of two named tenants. The other tenant withdrew from the tenancy because of family violence. This means that pursuant to section 56A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) Mr Maher is entitled to a reduction in rent payable for two weeks by 50% ($500.00) from the date of the withdrawal. This amount is therefore deducted from the amount claimed.

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

I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises (including the carpets and two upstairs blinds) reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish/belongings, and did not return all keys and security devices as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The amounts claimed have been established by the production of invoices. The amount claimed to recode the garage door remotes has been reduced because it includes the servicing of the garage door. There is insufficient evidence to establish that this work was required due to any damage caused by the tenant or others at the premises with his permission.
The landlord also claimed the cost ($90.51) to tidy the gardens. However, that work has not yet been done and I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the gardens were not left reasonably tidy, taking into account the level of tidiness at the commencement of the tenancy. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the following damage occurred during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it: • Installation of a cat door in the lounge window by the tenant that has caused the glass to crack; • Damage to the lounge curtains, probably by a cat; and • Stains on the carpets in two bedrooms that could not be removed by cleaning.
The amounts ordered to replace the lounge window glass has been established by the production of an invoice.
The landlord claims the sum of $1,750.00 to have the carpets in two bedrooms replaced. The amount claimed is based on a quote and the landlord (who has moved back into the premises) has not yet had the work done. The carpets were approximately 8 years old and there is a record of some damage (wrinkling of the carpet) in one bedroom.
The stains are not large, and the photographs do not indicate that they are particularly noticeable. I am therefore not persuaded that the stains have so badly damaged the carpets that they require replacement, particularly given the age and condition of the carpets (carpets in bedrooms are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring replacement). In the circumstances I consider a fair sum to compensate the landlords for the damage to the carpets is $150.00.
The landlord provided a quote totalling $1966.50 to replace the lounge curtains. The curtains were 8 years old and therefore considered to be at or near the end of their useful life (curtains are expected to last approximately 8 years before requiring replacement). The quote provided to support the amount claimed was based on the curtains being tailor made to fit the window. However, Ms Layton said that they do not need to be specially made and the landlord has ordered new curtains from Spotlight, but no evidence was provided as to the cost of the purchase. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider $50.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the curtains.
The landlord has been mostly successful in his claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlord applied, in his application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been substantially successful in his claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117249 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117249 — Rent arrears

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?

Should a suppression order be made?

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?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions