What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187991 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 5187991?

Rubbish Removal: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Nominal Award Cooktop: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Bench Top: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen/Laundry Items Replaced: $276.53 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Tiler: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Bin: $24.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187991?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12100717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187991 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 5187991?

Rubbish Removal: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Nominal Award Cooktop: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Bench Top: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen/Laundry Items Replaced: $276.53 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Tiler: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Bin: $24.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187991?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12100717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12B Rata Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5187991 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5187991 — net $332.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bench top	$483.00	Repairs: Bench top
Cleaning: rubbish removal, lawns	$480.00	Cleaning: rubbish removal, lawns
Repairs: Tiler	$172.00	Repairs: Tiler
Repairs: Painting	$1,050.00	Repairs: Painting
Rubbish bin	$24.00	Rubbish bin
Nominal award cooktop	$300.00	Nominal award cooktop
Repairs: Kitchen/laundry items replaced	$276.53	Repairs: Kitchen/laundry items replaced
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$332.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$332.53

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sukhjit Kaur and Ramandeep Kaur must pay [The landlord/s] $432.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared with the owner of the premises and a support person.
The tenant applied for a refund of the bond and the landlord filed a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond. Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 21 December 2022 and ended 17 January 2025.

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 reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted a large claim for cleaning and the evidence produced did not support this.
The main area of dispute was the paint on the handrails up the stairs which appeared to have worn off during the tenancy. The landlord claimed that it had been removed or had come away with cleaning.
The entry inspection dated 22 December 2022, noted 1 scape and two worn patches on the corners of the handrail.
The tenants provided evidence by way of emails in 2023, that they had communicated t their concerns about the paint coming away from this area to a previous property manager.
The owner said that they knew about this and believed it could be repainted but never heard back from the previous property manager, so nothing was done.
The landlord and owner knew for over a year that this was a problem, and it was not addressed. I do not find that this is a cost that the tenants should be liable for as it was not investigated when the tenants first raised it and is a maintenance issue. This was claimed as part of cleaning costs and painting. It is not awarded.
The cleaning invoice also included rubbish removal and a photograph of items collected from around the property at the end of the tenancy was provided.
The tenants disputed this saying they had taken all the rubbish except for a glass mirror, and emptied all recycling bins before the end of the tenancy. The property has a back yard that can be accessed by other residents and the tenants believe some of the rubbish came from them.
The landlord provided photographs of some small items of rubbish that were around the premises and award is it made to reflect that.
The tenants disputed some of the other cleaning, but the landlord was able to provide time stamped photographs which show that they were taken on the day that their tenancy ended. The established cleaning is included.
The cost to waterblast the concrete on the back deck is also awarded, but no other areas as there was not enough evidence provided.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a council food scraps bin.
The tenant said that the food scraps bin had been run over and provided a photograph and an e-mail to the property manager asking for a replacement. They probably manager told her to contact the city council for a replacement which she attempted, but never managed to replace the bin.
I find that the food scraps bin is a chattel for the tenants benefit and therefore the responsibility of the tenants to replace.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy, •Kitchen bench top had a small hole through to the board below. •Kitchen a floor tile had a small deep hole in it, that could have compromised the floor and was regrouted. •Nine walls had dents and scratches, two doors had smear marks, two garage walls had marks and scuffs, and two door cupboards edges were damaged. All were repainted. • A shower hose and kitchen plug were damaged.
The Landlord provided photographs of the damages claimed establishing that they had occurred during the tenancy.
The tenants said that this was wear and tear. They agreed that some of the wall marks and dents happened when they were moving out. It was not intentional damage.
The tenants questioned the cupboard damages saying it was inferior paint work, not marks and removal of the paint. The tenants did not provided evidence that they had informed the landlord about the damages. They said that some damages they did not notice. I find these damages careless.
An induction cooktop was cracked on the edges but has not been replaced. A quote for repairs was provided. The amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed the repair and has tenanted the premises. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss for this claim. I award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
The damages are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for them.
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 the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded name suppression as requested.
The claim for damage to the downpipe is dismissed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5187991 — net $332.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bench top	$483.00	Repairs: Bench top
Cleaning: rubbish removal, lawns	$480.00	Cleaning: rubbish removal, lawns
Repairs: Tiler	$172.00	Repairs: Tiler
Repairs: Painting	$1,050.00	Repairs: Painting
Rubbish bin	$24.00	Rubbish bin
Nominal award cooktop	$300.00	Nominal award cooktop
Repairs: Kitchen/laundry items replaced	$276.53	Repairs: Kitchen/laundry items replaced
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$332.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$332.53

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sukhjit Kaur and Ramandeep Kaur must pay [The landlord/s] $432.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared with the owner of the premises and a support person.
The tenant applied for a refund of the bond and the landlord filed a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond. Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 21 December 2022 and ended 17 January 2025.

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 reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted a large claim for cleaning and the evidence produced did not support this.
The main area of dispute was the paint on the handrails up the stairs which appeared to have worn off during the tenancy. The landlord claimed that it had been removed or had come away with cleaning.
The entry inspection dated 22 December 2022, noted 1 scape and two worn patches on the corners of the handrail.
The tenants provided evidence by way of emails in 2023, that they had communicated t their concerns about the paint coming away from this area to a previous property manager.
The owner said that they knew about this and believed it could be repainted but never heard back from the previous property manager, so nothing was done.
The landlord and owner knew for over a year that this was a problem, and it was not addressed. I do not find that this is a cost that the tenants should be liable for as it was not investigated when the tenants first raised it and is a maintenance issue. This was claimed as part of cleaning costs and painting. It is not awarded.
The cleaning invoice also included rubbish removal and a photograph of items collected from around the property at the end of the tenancy was provided.
The tenants disputed this saying they had taken all the rubbish except for a glass mirror, and emptied all recycling bins before the end of the tenancy. The property has a back yard that can be accessed by other residents and the tenants believe some of the rubbish came from them.
The landlord provided photographs of some small items of rubbish that were around the premises and award is it made to reflect that.
The tenants disputed some of the other cleaning, but the landlord was able to provide time stamped photographs which show that they were taken on the day that their tenancy ended. The established cleaning is included.
The cost to waterblast the concrete on the back deck is also awarded, but no other areas as there was not enough evidence provided.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a council food scraps bin.
The tenant said that the food scraps bin had been run over and provided a photograph and an e-mail to the property manager asking for a replacement. They probably manager told her to contact the city council for a replacement which she attempted, but never managed to replace the bin.
I find that the food scraps bin is a chattel for the tenants benefit and therefore the responsibility of the tenants to replace.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy, •Kitchen bench top had a small hole through to the board below. •Kitchen a floor tile had a small deep hole in it, that could have compromised the floor and was regrouted. •Nine walls had dents and scratches, two doors had smear marks, two garage walls had marks and scuffs, and two door cupboards edges were damaged. All were repainted. • A shower hose and kitchen plug were damaged.
The Landlord provided photographs of the damages claimed establishing that they had occurred during the tenancy.
The tenants said that this was wear and tear. They agreed that some of the wall marks and dents happened when they were moving out. It was not intentional damage.
The tenants questioned the cupboard damages saying it was inferior paint work, not marks and removal of the paint. The tenants did not provided evidence that they had informed the landlord about the damages. They said that some damages they did not notice. I find these damages careless.
An induction cooktop was cracked on the edges but has not been replaced. A quote for repairs was provided. The amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed the repair and has tenanted the premises. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss for this claim. I award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
The damages are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for them.
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 the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded name suppression as requested.
The claim for damage to the downpipe is dismissed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and awarded name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187991 — Property damage at 12B Rata Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187991 — Property damage at 12B Rata Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions