What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5205292?

The tribunal order states: Edward Errington Mcguire must pay Pan Kiwi Realty Limited $5,150.71

How much money was awarded in case 5205292?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205292?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12094479-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5205292?

The tribunal order states: Edward Errington Mcguire must pay Pan Kiwi Realty Limited $5,150.71

How much money was awarded in case 5205292?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205292?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12094479-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 17A Elm Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205292 — Property damage

Order

Edward Errington Mcguire must pay Pan Kiwi Realty Limited $5,150.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by David Zhao. There was no appearance by the tenant who I was told has moved to Australia.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been served in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
This was a very long-standing tenancy which began on 4 April 2014.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

Mr Zhao said that the tenant rang him on 26 December 2024 explained that he had moved to Australia. The tenant was required to give 28 days notice.
The tenant had not given notice previously. Mr Zhao therefore took 26 December 2024 as the date that notice was given.
The landlord is entitled to rent until 23 January 2025, being 28 days after the date that notice was given. The landlord produced a rent summary showing that there had been an ongoing arrears of $335.71 and that the tenant had stopped paying rent, with the last payment made on 17 December 2025. The rent summary shows that rent was owing in the amount of $2775.71 at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved.

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) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an exit inspection report with photos at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed the sum of $540.50 for cleaning. I have reviewed the photos from the end of the tenancy. The property is very run down. The tenant has done very little cleaning and the oven in particular is very dirty. The various shelves and windowsills have accumulated dirt. The condition of the bathroom was not clear. After a tenancy of this length it would be expected that a landlord would do a deep clean. I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the entire invoice. I consider that compensation in the amount of $250.00 is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord claimed the sum of $402.50 for rubbish removal. I consider this amount to be reasonable given the amount of rubbish and belongings left behind. This claim is proved.
The landlord claimed the sum of $253.50 for carpet cleaning. I am not satisfied that the tenant should be liable for the cost of carpet cleaning as after a tenancy of this length a landlord would be expected steam clean the carpets anyway. There was nothing about the condition of the carpet that has persuaded me that this should be an obligation of the tenant in this case. This claim is not proved.
The landlord produced an entry inspection report confirming that the landlord gave the tenant two keys each for the security door, front door and internal garage door.
The tenant left keys in the letterbox when they moved to Australia but the only keys for the property were two for the security screen door. The tenant did not return the front door keys or internal garage door keys.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $460.00 for changing the front door and internal garage locks. This claim is 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: a. There are large iron marks in the carpet in the three bedrooms which had to be patched (invoice for patch repairs $310.50); and b. There were numerous large holes in the walls (invoice for repair $3,507.50 for patching and painting).
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage appears to be intentional.
The carpet consists of hard-wearing carpet squares which have a longer estimated lifespan than other carpet. The landlord has been very economic with repairs given the amount of damage and has just replaced the squares that appear to have been intentionally damaged with an iron. I consider the amount claimed to be reasonable and order the full amount claimed of $310.50.
The landlord said that the tenant’s son had damaged the walls previously (in approximately 2020) and the landlord had done repairs and reached a settlement with the tenant for the cost of the damage. This damage is new damage that occurred when the tenant’s son moved back in.
In the circumstances I consider that the landlord is entitled to the cost of the patching, but there should be some deduction for painting as the landlord now has newly painted walls. As these were last painted in approximately 2020 I have deducted approximately half of the painting portion of the invoice.
The amount ordered for patching and painting is $2,645.00. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been the substantially successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00. The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. Bond
The bond has already been paid to the landlord. I have nominally included the bond in my calculations to establish the final sum owing to the landlord. No order is required for the release of the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205292 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 17A Elm Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205292 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 17A Elm Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

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?

Property management

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?

Property management