What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5142529?

The tribunal order states: Zoe Matekuare must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan

How much money was awarded in case 5142529?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12079241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5142529?

The tribunal order states: Zoe Matekuare must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan

How much money was awarded in case 5142529?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12079241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5142529 — Property damage

Order

Zoe Matekuare must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan $320.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5895005-009) to Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan immediately.

Reasons

The landlord was represented in the hearing by Mr Bi. Mr Bi was assisted by an interpreter. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove that at the end of the tenancy there was an overpayment for rent of $388.57, and $556.43 owing for water rates.

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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs were provided which show the bathroom not entirely clean, cupboards in the laundry to not be clean and a couple of other areas that are not fully clean. An invoice for cleaning for $494.50 was also provided.
Having seen the photographs, I am satisfied that overall the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy, except for the carpets. The kitchen looks very clean, including cupboards, drawers and the oven. This is not to say that more cleaning was not required to get the property up to a start-of-tenancy standard, but that is a landlord’s responsibility and not the standard required of an outgoing tenant. The claim for cleaning is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $299.00 for cleaning the carpets. The landlord produced an invoice and start of tenancy photographs which show the carpet to be in average condition but clean throughout. The end of tenancy photographs show the carpet to be heavily marked throughout the bedrooms and living area. The claim is proved.
The landlord produced a photograph which shows that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant left a flexible bin with rubbish in it outside the premises. This needed disposing of by the landlord. The landlord received a quote of $160.00 to remove the bin. This claim is proved.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had to replace the garage remove. An invoice for $235.75 was produced by the landlord. The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 produced photographs which show floorboards in the laundry to have been broken or smashed at the end of the tenancy. Start-of-tenancy photographs show the floor to be intact. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord produced an invoice for $1,069.00 for repairs. The claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $621.00 for a broken window in the bedroom. The landlord produced and invoice and photographs in support. The tenant has not disproved liability. The claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $460.00 to repair a wall in the bathroom. The landlord produced an invoice and photographs in support. The photographs show a large area of the wall lining to have been pulled away showing framing behind. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. The claim is proved. The amounts ordered 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.
Because Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Zoe Matekuare must pay Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan $320.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (5895005-009) to Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan immediately.

Reasons

The landlord was represented in the hearing by Mr Bi. Mr Bi was assisted by an interpreter. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove that at the end of the tenancy there was an overpayment for rent of $388.57, and $556.43 owing for water rates.

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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs were provided which show the bathroom not entirely clean, cupboards in the laundry to not be clean and a couple of other areas that are not fully clean. An invoice for cleaning for $494.50 was also provided.
Having seen the photographs, I am satisfied that overall the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy, except for the carpets. The kitchen looks very clean, including cupboards, drawers and the oven. This is not to say that more cleaning was not required to get the property up to a start-of-tenancy standard, but that is a landlord’s responsibility and not the standard required of an outgoing tenant. The claim for cleaning is not proved.
The landlord is claiming $299.00 for cleaning the carpets. The landlord produced an invoice and start of tenancy photographs which show the carpet to be in average condition but clean throughout. The end of tenancy photographs show the carpet to be heavily marked throughout the bedrooms and living area. The claim is proved.
The landlord produced a photograph which shows that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant left a flexible bin with rubbish in it outside the premises. This needed disposing of by the landlord. The landlord received a quote of $160.00 to remove the bin. This claim is proved.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had to replace the garage remove. An invoice for $235.75 was produced by the landlord. The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 produced photographs which show floorboards in the laundry to have been broken or smashed at the end of the tenancy. Start-of-tenancy photographs show the floor to be intact. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord produced an invoice for $1,069.00 for repairs. The claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $621.00 for a broken window in the bedroom. The landlord produced and invoice and photographs in support. The tenant has not disproved liability. The claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $460.00 to repair a wall in the bathroom. The landlord produced an invoice and photographs in support. The photographs show a large area of the wall lining to have been pulled away showing framing behind. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. The claim is proved. The amounts ordered 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.
Because Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Fei Yan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5142529 — Property damage at 12 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

Tenancy Tribunal case 5142529 — Property damage at 12 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management