What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5152531?

The tribunal order states: Nathaniel Julian Sosene to pay Reforma P.M. Limited $2,853.22 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5152531?

Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $576.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152531?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5152531?

The tribunal order states: Nathaniel Julian Sosene to pay Reforma P.M. Limited $2,853.22 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5152531?

Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $576.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152531?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Tima Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5152531 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152531 — net $2,853.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$576.22	Water rates to end of tenancy
Carpet Cleaning	$190.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$180.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Insurance excess	$400.00	Rubbish removal: Insurance excess
Replace garage remote	$280.00	Replace garage remote
Paintwork insurance excess	$400.00	Paintwork insurance excess
Carpet replacement bedrooms 2 and 3 – excess x2	$800.00	Carpet replacement bedrooms 2 and 3 – excess x2
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,853.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,853.22

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Peters of Reforma P.M. Limited. There was no appearance for the tenant.

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

This tenancy began in March 2024 and ended on 6 December 2024.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $576.22. The landlord advised that the tenant paid no water during the tenancy. The amount is ordered as sought.

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 leave the premises in particular the kitchen floor, walls, shower and carpet reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant did not return the garage remotes.

The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and invoices for have been provided. The landlord only seeks reimbursement of the half of the cleaning invoice as additional cleaning was requested by the landlord.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to paintwork and ink damage to carpet in bedrooms two and three. The landlord provided before and after photographs proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has insurance for the damage and seeks reimbursement for the excesses for three claims at $400 each and these amounts are ordered.

The landlord also sought compensation for damage to exterior plaster, but no photo taken before the damage was provided so this was not proved. The landlord sought compensation for damage to a stairway light but no evidence of the cost to remedy was provided. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed for lack of evidence.

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. The landlord advised that this was a brand new premises at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenancy lasted for less than nine months.

Because Reforma P.M. Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152531 — net $2,853.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$576.22	Water rates to end of tenancy
Carpet Cleaning	$190.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$180.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Insurance excess	$400.00	Rubbish removal: Insurance excess
Replace garage remote	$280.00	Replace garage remote
Paintwork insurance excess	$400.00	Paintwork insurance excess
Carpet replacement bedrooms 2 and 3 – excess x2	$800.00	Carpet replacement bedrooms 2 and 3 – excess x2
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,853.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,853.22

Order

Nathaniel Julian Sosene to pay Reforma P.M. Limited $2,853.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Peters of Reforma P.M. Limited. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy began in March 2024 and ended on 6 December 2024.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $576.22. The landlord advised that the tenant paid no water during the tenancy. The amount is ordered as sought.

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 leave the premises in particular the kitchen floor, walls, shower and carpet reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the garage remotes.
The amounts ordered are proved. Photographs and invoices for have been provided. The landlord only seeks reimbursement of the half of the cleaning invoice as additional cleaning was requested by the landlord.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to paintwork and ink damage to carpet in bedrooms two and three. The landlord provided before and after photographs proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has insurance for the damage and seeks reimbursement for the excesses for three claims at $400 each and these amounts are ordered.
The landlord also sought compensation for damage to exterior plaster, but no photo taken before the damage was provided so this was not proved. The landlord sought compensation for damage to a stairway light but no evidence of the cost to remedy was provided. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed for lack of evidence.
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. The landlord advised that this was a brand new premises at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenancy lasted for less than nine months.
Because Reforma P.M. Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152531 — Property damage at 53 Tima Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152531 — Property damage at 53 Tima Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions