What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5117532?

The tribunal order states: Aaron Peter Hadrup must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Jill Moss

How much money was awarded in case 5117532?

2 Chairs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Sleepout Door Handle: $52.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $367.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117532?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11836114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5117532?

The tribunal order states: Aaron Peter Hadrup must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Jill Moss

How much money was awarded in case 5117532?

2 Chairs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Sleepout Door Handle: $52.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $367.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117532?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11836114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Noho Street, Kakahi, Kakahi 3989 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117532 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117532 — net $841.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$400.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: (1/2 of	$367.08		Rubbish removal: (1/2 of
2 chairs	$200.00		2 chairs
Replace sleepout door handle	$52.98		Replace sleepout door handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond		$355.75	Balance of bond
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a		$200.00	Failure to provide premises in a
Total award	$1,397.06	$555.75
Net award	$841.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$841.31

Order

Aaron Peter Hadrup must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Jill Moss $841.31, calculated as shown in table below. The remainder of the landlord claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
This tenancy began in December 2022 and ended in October 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties advised that the bond has already been refunded and mostly applied towards rent arrears. There is a balance of $355.75 which is applied to reduce the tenant debt today.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant stated that he cleaned the premises but agreed that some further cleaning was required in particular in the sleep out, the tenant agreed that the lawns needed mowing. The landlord provided exit photographs and invoices in support of the claim. Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant did clean the premises, but some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but not a full house clean as invoiced. I order the tenant to contribute $400.00 towards the cost of cleaning and to pay the lawnmowing in the sum of $350.00.
In respect of rubbish the tenant advised that there was rubbish at the premises before the tenancy began and he had assisted the owner with removing this during the tenancy by helping load a skip and had received no compensation. The tenant claimed there was still some of the owner’s rubbish on the deck, in particular an old couch. He accepted that some tenant rubbish was left behind at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and two rubbish removal invoices totalling $743.16. Having considered the evidence I accept that the tenant had assisted the owner with rubbish removal and that not all rubbish belonged to the tenancy. Taking this in to account I find it appropriate to order the tenant to reimburse half of the rubbish removal costs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew a claim in respect of missing lightbulbs as the tenant advised that there were electrical problems during this tenancy and there were lights that did not work at the premises.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: Two wooden dining chairs. The landlord sought $1650.00 for replacement cost. The tenant stated that he had no knowledge of the whereabouts of these chairs. The landlord could not provide an accurate age of the chairs but advised that they were at least five years old, they have not been replaced and the landlord only provided one quote for items that are not identical in support of the claim. As the items are old and only one quote for replacement is provided the Tribunal must take a cautious approach when ordering compensation. The amount of $100.00 per chair totalling $200.00 is ordered.

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.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to door fixtures, damage to walls and curtains, damage to kitchen cabinetry.
The tenant accepts liability for damage to the sleepout door handle caused by his son but disputes the remaining claims on the basis that the premises were old and the damage to the walls, curtains and other door handles was present at the beginning of the tenancy and the kitchen cabinets were old and the draws were loose and the fronts fell off.
The landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports including photographs and invoices.
Having carefully considered the evidence including the age and condition of these premises at the beginning of the tenancy I find that that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant is ordered to pay the sum of $52.98 to repair the sleepout door.
The remainder of the landlord claims are dismissed.
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. Tenant set off claim
The tenant sought a set off against the landlord claim on the basis that when he moved into the premises the toilet in one bathroom did not work and this was not repaired in a timely manner. The landlord confirmed that their records showed that the toilet was repaired two months after the tenancy began.
Having considered the tenant set off claim I find that the tenant has proved that the landlord failed to provide one bathroom in the premises in a reasonable state of repair and order the sum of $200.00 being $100.00 per month for the two months that the toilet was unusable to be set off against the amount owed by the tenant.
The parties advised that they will discuss a repayment arrangement following the hearing. Filing fee
Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Jill Moss has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117532 — net $841.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$400.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: (1/2 of	$367.08		Rubbish removal: (1/2 of
2 chairs	$200.00		2 chairs
Replace sleepout door handle	$52.98		Replace sleepout door handle
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond		$355.75	Balance of bond
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a		$200.00	Failure to provide premises in a
Total award	$1,397.06	$555.75
Net award	$841.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$841.31

Order

Aaron Peter Hadrup must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Jill Moss $841.31, calculated as shown in table below. The remainder of the landlord claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
This tenancy began in December 2022 and ended in October 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties advised that the bond has already been refunded and mostly applied towards rent arrears. There is a balance of $355.75 which is applied to reduce the tenant debt today.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant stated that he cleaned the premises but agreed that some further cleaning was required in particular in the sleep out, the tenant agreed that the lawns needed mowing. The landlord provided exit photographs and invoices in support of the claim. Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant did clean the premises, but some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but not a full house clean as invoiced. I order the tenant to contribute $400.00 towards the cost of cleaning and to pay the lawnmowing in the sum of $350.00.
In respect of rubbish the tenant advised that there was rubbish at the premises before the tenancy began and he had assisted the owner with removing this during the tenancy by helping load a skip and had received no compensation. The tenant claimed there was still some of the owner’s rubbish on the deck, in particular an old couch. He accepted that some tenant rubbish was left behind at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and two rubbish removal invoices totalling $743.16. Having considered the evidence I accept that the tenant had assisted the owner with rubbish removal and that not all rubbish belonged to the tenancy. Taking this in to account I find it appropriate to order the tenant to reimburse half of the rubbish removal costs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew a claim in respect of missing lightbulbs as the tenant advised that there were electrical problems during this tenancy and there were lights that did not work at the premises.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: Two wooden dining chairs. The landlord sought $1650.00 for replacement cost. The tenant stated that he had no knowledge of the whereabouts of these chairs. The landlord could not provide an accurate age of the chairs but advised that they were at least five years old, they have not been replaced and the landlord only provided one quote for items that are not identical in support of the claim. As the items are old and only one quote for replacement is provided the Tribunal must take a cautious approach when ordering compensation. The amount of $100.00 per chair totalling $200.00 is ordered.

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.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to door fixtures, damage to walls and curtains, damage to kitchen cabinetry.
The tenant accepts liability for damage to the sleepout door handle caused by his son but disputes the remaining claims on the basis that the premises were old and the damage to the walls, curtains and other door handles was present at the beginning of the tenancy and the kitchen cabinets were old and the draws were loose and the fronts fell off.
The landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports including photographs and invoices.
Having carefully considered the evidence including the age and condition of these premises at the beginning of the tenancy I find that that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant is ordered to pay the sum of $52.98 to repair the sleepout door.
The remainder of the landlord claims are dismissed.
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. Tenant set off claim
The tenant sought a set off against the landlord claim on the basis that when he moved into the premises the toilet in one bathroom did not work and this was not repaired in a timely manner. The landlord confirmed that their records showed that the toilet was repaired two months after the tenancy began.
Having considered the tenant set off claim I find that the tenant has proved that the landlord failed to provide one bathroom in the premises in a reasonable state of repair and order the sum of $200.00 being $100.00 per month for the two months that the toilet was unusable to be set off against the amount owed by the tenant.
The parties advised that they will discuss a repayment arrangement following the hearing. Filing fee
Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Jill Moss has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117532 — Cleanliness at 76 Noho Street, Kakahi, Kakahi 3989

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117532 — Cleanliness at 76 Noho Street, Kakahi, Kakahi 3989

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions