What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174291 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $2,222.21.

How much money was awarded in case 5174291?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $295.71 awarded to landlord; Artificial Grass: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174291?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12189092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174291 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $2,222.21.

How much money was awarded in case 5174291?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $295.71 awarded to landlord; Artificial Grass: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174291?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12189092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174291 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5174291 — net $2,222.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$295.71	Rent arrears
Repairs: walls	$1,050.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: artificial grass	$600.00	Repairs: artificial grass
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$149.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,222.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,222.21

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yetman represented the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 September 2024. The landlord is claiming rent arrears of $295.71. The tenant does not dispute the amount. The claim is ordered by consent.

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 “RTA”).

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy no cleaning had been undertaken by the tenant. She says there was dust, marks on the walls, and the oven had not been cleaned. The landlord produced and invoice for $181.50 and photographs. The photographs are not helpful as it is not possible to see from them the cleanliness of the premises. Overall the premises appear to be reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant stated the premises were cleaned at the end of the tenancy with the exception of the oven.

The claim is partially proved.

A responsible landlord will usually conduct a deeper clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of a tenant. I make an award for cleaning the oven plus a little extra, which I consider is sufficient to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy.

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant did not return the keys. This is accepted by the tenant. The landlord is claiming $149.50 to re-key the premises and she produced an invoice in support. This is not disputed by the tenant. This claim is ordered by consent.

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.

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 is claiming for the following damage to the interior walls of the premises: a. Four holes drilled into the wall in order to mount a television upstairs, b. Four holes drilled into the wall in order to mount a television downstairs, c. A large gouge/depression in the stairwell wall, d. A dent high on the bedroom wall, e. Two marks where the paint has been pulled off a wall.

The landlord produced photographs and an invoice for $1201.75 for the repairs.

The tenant accepted the damage was cause during the tenancy but says the repairs seemed expensive.

The claim is proved.

I determine the holes drilled into the walls are intentional damage and the remainder of the damage is careless damage.

The landlord is claiming the tenant damaged the artificial grass in the outside courtyard by using a barbeque. The landlord produced photographs which show an area of artificial grass either side of the barbeque to be discoloured, possibly by spillage. The grass does not appear melted, and the marks appear to be an oily stain rather than a burn mark. The landlord produced and an invoice for $1,799.75 to replace the artificial grass for the entire courtyard area.

The landlord stated that because the artificial grass is stuck to concrete it is not possible to patch the grass.

The tenant stated that she made enquiries about having the artificial grass patched, and she was told it could be patched for approximately $600.00, but it was likely there could be a slight difference in colour.

The marks to the grass are not large, and although they are obvious, I do not consider them to be particularly unsightly. Although the tenant did not argue that the damage was fair wear and tear, I consider the use of a barbeque in a courtyard to be reasonable behaviour. It is somewhat inevitable there will be some wear marks that result from this use. To the extent that the marks exceed fair wear and tear, I do not consider this to be by a great margin. I therefore determine that the tenant has suffered loss, but I do not consider it a reasonable remedy to replace the artificial grass for the entire courtyard. I determine a reasonable outcome is for the tenant to compensate the landlord for the damage with a financial contribution commensurate with the loss. The amount awarded is in consideration for this.

I must take 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 amounts ordered are proved.

Because has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5174291 — net $2,222.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$295.71	Rent arrears
Repairs: walls	$1,050.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: artificial grass	$600.00	Repairs: artificial grass
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$149.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,222.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,222.21

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yetman represented the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 September 2024. The landlord is claiming rent arrears of $295.71. The tenant does not dispute the amount. The claim is ordered by consent.

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 “RTA”).
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy no cleaning had been undertaken by the tenant. She says there was dust, marks on the walls, and the oven had not been cleaned. The landlord produced and invoice for $181.50 and photographs. The photographs are not helpful as it is not possible to see from them the cleanliness of the premises. Overall the premises appear to be reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant stated the premises were cleaned at the end of the tenancy with the exception of the oven.
The claim is partially proved.
A responsible landlord will usually conduct a deeper clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of a tenant. I make an award for cleaning the oven plus a little extra, which I consider is sufficient to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant did not return the keys. This is accepted by the tenant. The landlord is claiming $149.50 to re-key the premises and she produced an invoice in support. This is not disputed by the tenant. This claim is ordered by consent.

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.
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 is claiming for the following damage to the interior walls of the premises: a. Four holes drilled into the wall in order to mount a television upstairs, b. Four holes drilled into the wall in order to mount a television downstairs, c. A large gouge/depression in the stairwell wall, d. A dent high on the bedroom wall, e. Two marks where the paint has been pulled off a wall.
The landlord produced photographs and an invoice for $1201.75 for the repairs.
The tenant accepted the damage was cause during the tenancy but says the repairs seemed expensive.
The claim is proved.
I determine the holes drilled into the walls are intentional damage and the remainder of the damage is careless damage.
The landlord is claiming the tenant damaged the artificial grass in the outside courtyard by using a barbeque. The landlord produced photographs which show an area of artificial grass either side of the barbeque to be discoloured, possibly by spillage. The grass does not appear melted, and the marks appear to be an oily stain rather than a burn mark. The landlord produced and an invoice for $1,799.75 to replace the artificial grass for the entire courtyard area.
The landlord stated that because the artificial grass is stuck to concrete it is not possible to patch the grass.
The tenant stated that she made enquiries about having the artificial grass patched, and she was told it could be patched for approximately $600.00, but it was likely there could be a slight difference in colour.
The marks to the grass are not large, and although they are obvious, I do not consider them to be particularly unsightly. Although the tenant did not argue that the damage was fair wear and tear, I consider the use of a barbeque in a courtyard to be reasonable behaviour. It is somewhat inevitable there will be some wear marks that result from this use. To the extent that the marks exceed fair wear and tear, I do not consider this to be by a great margin. I therefore determine that the tenant has suffered loss, but I do not consider it a reasonable remedy to replace the artificial grass for the entire courtyard. I determine a reasonable outcome is for the tenant to compensate the landlord for the damage with a financial contribution commensurate with the loss. The amount awarded is in consideration for this.
I must take 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 amounts ordered are proved.
Because has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174291 — Property damage at 33 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174291 — Property damage at 33 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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