What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159910 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5159910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11697984-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159910 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5159910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11697984-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Stolford Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5159910 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay Buy West Property Management Limited $963.14 from the bond, immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]), immediately, as follows: a. $963.14 to Buy West Property Management Limited; b. $1,276.86 to [The tenant/s]
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Li, representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], and her partner [redacted] as her support person, all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, 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 26 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records to 26 December 2024 which prove that $628.57 was owing in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy, as the landlord sent in a first rent summary during the hearing. The landlord confirmed to the tenant that the first two weeks’ rent paid in advance was used for the first two weeks’ rent in the tenancy at the start of the tenancy, which the tenant had questioned prior to the hearing.
The landlord also provided water rates invoices which prove that $192.57 was owing in water bills up to the end of the tenancy. The landlord clarified that, whilst the last water bill went to 6 January 2025, past the end of the tenancy, there was nobody else living in the property or using the water at the property from the end of the tenancy to 6 January 2025. The property manager confirmed the owner had turned off the water after the tenants left.
The tenant then agreed to pay $628.57 in rent arrears and $192.57 for water bills, as claimed, to the end of the tenancy.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as the oven was left dirty. The landlord provided photographs taken during an exit inspection on 9 January 2025 showing a dirty oven. The landlord did not provide any Ingoing Inspection report.
The tenant admitted she must have missed cleaning and checking the oven before she left the property but said the property manager only notified her around 11 January 2025 that she was to return to the property and clean the oven (she still had a key then). The tenant said when she returned to the property to clean the oven, the owner had turned the water off. She said she texted the property manager about this and waited 3 hours for him to respond before she had to return to work and leave. The tenant did not know how to turn the water on herself. The landlord then charged the tenant for getting a professional cleaner to clean the oven and claimed $115.00 for the oven clean. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning the oven for $115.00, which I find is a reasonable cost for a thorough oven cleaning.
The tenant is responsible for ensuring the premises are left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The property manager pointed out that the tenant had the key after the tenancy ended and could have returned to the property sooner to check the condition of the oven and clean it again, before he notified her of the oven’s condition or before the owner turned the water off. Ultimately, the tenant is liable for any cost of ensuring the property is returned to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, which includes the oven. The tenant did not dispute the oven needed cleaning at the end of the tenancy or that she was responsible for this. Therefore, I award the landlord $115.00 to clean the oven.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Carpet stains
The landlord said the tenant caused stains in carpets in two rooms during the tenancy, in the lounge and in the bedroom/study upstairs. The landlord provided some photographs as a part of their Exit Inspection Report, showing some stains on these carpets. However, the landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report showing the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant said they did not cause all the stains shown in the photographs of the landlord, as some of the stains in each room were there before they moved in. The landlord agreed there might have been some staining on the carpets before the tenancy. The tenant said they asked a professional carpet cleaner to come in at the end of the tenancy but were told by them that the carpet was more than 20 years old, was fragile and would likely disintegrate if treated, so this was not done by them. Further, the tenant said she purchased 3 sets of new blackout curtains for the master bedroom during the tenancy, as the curtains there at the start of the tenancy were, she said, substandard and let the sunlight through. The tenant said she had reached an agreement with the property manager after leaving the property that she would leave her purchased curtains at the property in exchange for any stains they had caused in the carpet, which she said were accidental and were only one stain in each of the lounge and study/bedroom. The tenant said the landlord now has the curtains she purchased at the property and left there on this understanding.
The property manager said he recalled a phone conversation with the tenant about her purchased curtains and the carpet stains but denied any agreement had been reached between them about this matter. He pointed out that he was not aware of one of the carpet stains at the time anyway, as he had not yet completed his final inspection then. He indicated he thought the curtains in the master bedroom were fine at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed $500.00 as a ‘contribution’ from the tenant towards the cost of replacing the carpet. The landlord provided an invoice for $3,788.56 to replace the carpet. The invoice provided did not specify which carpets in the property had been replaced. The property manager said all the carpets downstairs were replaced, but not the carpet in the bedroom/study upstairs, which was one of the rooms which was the subject of the landlord’s carpet claims. The property manager said he thought a contribution of $500.00 was fair towards the cost of the carpet, as it would have cost $350.00 to patch each of the two areas otherwise. The landlord did not provide any evidence about the cost of patching carpet, and the landlord confirmed they had not investigated the possibility of having a professional carpet cleaner to address the stains, as the property manager acknowledged the carpet was likely too old and the owner preferred to get new carpet. The landlord also confirmed they had not made an insurance claim for the carpet, and confirmed their insurance excess was $550.00.
As the landlord did not provide the Ingoing Inspection Report or any photographs of the carpets in issue at the start of the tenancy, it is difficult to assess the extent of carpet staining already present in the lounge and bedroom/study before the tenancy began, as opposed to any stains caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The tenant also said there had been an agreement with the landlord for them to retain 3 sets of new curtains in exchange for any carpet stains caused by the landlord, which was disputed by the landlord. Further, the landlord confirmed that the invoice for $3,788.56 was for the replacement of carpet for the whole downstairs area, which did not include the bedroom/study at all. Thus, there is no evidence that the landlord intends to replace the carpet in the bedroom/study area claimed.
I find there is insufficient evidence about any agreement between the parties about the landlord retaining curtains purchased by the tenant in exchange for any carpet stains. I also find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the extent of any staining in the carpets caused by the tenant, nor the cost of any rectification of this issue, given the lack of investigation of any professional carpet cleaner to potentially remedy staining and the age of the carpet as a likely factor in not doing so, as well as the replacement carpet as per the invoice provided not even covering the bedroom/study carpet, for which the landlord had claimed a contribution.
Given the insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove their claim for the extent of any carpet stains caused or the cost of addressing carpet stains by the tenant, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because Buy West Property Management Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant said she believed that most of the issues raised by the landlord could have been sorted out between them without the need to come to a Tribunal hearing. She pointed to several emails she had sent the property manager asking for further information to clarify the rent arrears issue about how the first two weeks’ rent is applied, the water bills going beyond the end of the tenancy and the carpet and oven issues. The tenant said she remained willing to resolve these matters with the landlord and had indicated that. Once the property manager clarified the rent arrears and water bills issues at the hearing, the tenant willingly agreed to pay the amounts claimed for these by the landlord. The tenant also attempted to clean the oven, as requested by the landlord, after the end of the tenancy but could not do so because the water had been turned off. The tenant believed that improved communication could have prevented the landlord’s Tribunal application. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159910 — Rent arrears at 15 Stolford Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159910 — Rent arrears at 15 Stolford Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions