What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5166549?

The tribunal order states: Amit Maharaj must pay Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5166549?

Cleaning: $163.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,940.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11878141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5166549?

The tribunal order states: Amit Maharaj must pay Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5166549?

Cleaning: $163.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $140.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,940.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11878141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 9, 27 Grande Vue Road, Papatoetoe, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5166549 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166549 — net $540.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$163.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Painting due to smoke damage (reduced	$1,940.75		Repairs: Painting due to smoke damage (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Heat pump compensation		$140.00	Heat pump compensation
Total award	$2,280.75	$140.00
Net award	$540.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.75

Order

Amit Maharaj must pay Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For Henry & Mary Chanwai $540.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3038216-019) to Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For Henry & Mary Chanwai immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They also claim that the tenant was responsible for some carpet stains at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of these two claims. The evidence provided confirmation of mould on the bathroom ceiling and other areas of the premises where further cleaning was required. The shower also required cleaning. I have also sighted the paid invoice expense claims as provided with the application.
Having regard to the evidence provided I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The amounts claimed are reasonable.
The amounts ordered for cleaning and carpet cleaning 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant was burning incense inside the premises which caused staining on the ceiling and walls of the kitchen, lounge and bedrooms. This was brought to the attention of the tenant by emails from the landlord dated 14 December 2022 and 2 October 2023. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports along with an invoice from Top Painters Limited.
The amount claimed for painting is reflected in an email from the painters dated 20 January 2025. The email estimates repairs to the lounge, kitchen and both bedroom walls and ceilings to be $2587.50 (including GST).
The landlord’s exit inspection report dated 16 December 2024 records as follows: a. lounge ceiling, walls and windows: smoke damage b. Kitchen: smoke damage to ceiling c. Bedroom 1: Smoke damage to ceiling, walls and windows d. Bedroom 2: Mould damage only
I have carefully considered the evidence filed by the landlord and find the tenant is responsible for the painting invoice relating to smoke damage for the lounge, kitchen and bedroom one. The evidence provided does not satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should be liable for the painting costs in respect of bedroom two which related to mould and not smoke.
Accordingly, I reduce the painting claim of $2587.50 by one quarter to $1940.75. I also deduct the heat pump compensation amount of $140.00 from the total award.
Because Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For Henry & Mary Chanwai has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5166549 — net $540.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$163.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Painting due to smoke damage (reduced	$1,940.75		Repairs: Painting due to smoke damage (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Heat pump compensation		$140.00	Heat pump compensation
Total award	$2,280.75	$140.00
Net award	$540.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.75

Order

Amit Maharaj must pay Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For Henry & Mary Chanwai $540.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3038216-019) to Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For Henry & Mary Chanwai immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They also claim that the tenant was responsible for some carpet stains at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of these two claims. The evidence provided confirmation of mould on the bathroom ceiling and other areas of the premises where further cleaning was required. The shower also required cleaning. I have also sighted the paid invoice expense claims as provided with the application.
Having regard to the evidence provided I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The amounts claimed are reasonable.
The amounts ordered for cleaning and carpet cleaning 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant was burning incense inside the premises which caused staining on the ceiling and walls of the kitchen, lounge and bedrooms. This was brought to the attention of the tenant by emails from the landlord dated 14 December 2022 and 2 October 2023. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports along with an invoice from Top Painters Limited.
The amount claimed for painting is reflected in an email from the painters dated 20 January 2025. The email estimates repairs to the lounge, kitchen and both bedroom walls and ceilings to be $2587.50 (including GST).
The landlord’s exit inspection report dated 16 December 2024 records as follows: a. lounge ceiling, walls and windows: smoke damage b. Kitchen: smoke damage to ceiling c. Bedroom 1: Smoke damage to ceiling, walls and windows d. Bedroom 2: Mould damage only
I have carefully considered the evidence filed by the landlord and find the tenant is responsible for the painting invoice relating to smoke damage for the lounge, kitchen and bedroom one. The evidence provided does not satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should be liable for the painting costs in respect of bedroom two which related to mould and not smoke.
Accordingly, I reduce the painting claim of $2587.50 by one quarter to $1940.75. I also deduct the heat pump compensation amount of $140.00 from the total award.
Because Noble Property Management Limited As Agents For Henry & Mary Chanwai has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166549 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 9, 27 Grande Vue Road, Papatoetoe,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166549 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 9, 27 Grande Vue Road, Papatoetoe,

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