What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219893 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5219893?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,171.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12281951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219893 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5219893?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,171.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219893?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12281951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 4 Littler Place, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5219893 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219893 — net $5,898.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: patch, plaster, and repair of walls and two new doors	$2,500.00	Repairs: patch, plaster, and repair of walls and two new doors
Rent arrears	$4,171.43	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,898.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,898.43

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Country Rentals Limited T/A Ray White - Tuakau As Agent For Montagna Group Ltd $5,898.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-00007849) to [The landlord/s] And Country Rentals Limited T/A Ray White - Tuakau As Agent For Montagna Group Ltd immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord. The tenancy has now ended.

Ms Nahi, Property Manager, appeared at the hearing for the landlord. The tenants did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Background

The property was sold to the landlord, Montagna Group Limited, on or around 18 July 2024. When the property was sold, it was tenanted by a third party (the “third party”). [The tenant/s] and Terrance Te Paea (the “tenants”), resided at the property as flatmates of the third party.

On 29 August 2024, [The landlord/s] and Country Rentals Ltd trading as Ray White Tuakau, took over the management of the property (the “Property Managers”).

Sometime between 18 July 2024 and 29 August 2024 the third party gave notice to end their tenancy. The third party paid rent up until 19 September 2024, however the date they vacated the property is unknown.

On 29 August 2024 a tenancy agreement was signed between the landlord and the tenants.

On 25 October 2024 the Property Manager undertook their first tenancy inspection of the property.

The tenancy ended on 3 March 2025 after the tenants gave 21 days’ notice. Landlord’s claims

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed its claims: a. Rent arrears. b. Compensation totalling $18,124.00 for the following: i. Cleaning ii. Carpet cleaning. iii. Rubbish removal. iv. Changing the locks. v. Repairs and painting costs. vi. Replacement and rehanging of doors. vii. Vanity top replacement. c. Refund of the bond; and d. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant Legal Considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

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 unlikely, 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. Rent arrears

The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $4171.43 and provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owed.

The amount claimed is ordered. Compensation

The landlord seeks compensation for remediation work completed at the property and provided the Tribunal with a quote totalling $18,124.00.

The quote itemises the repair work as follows: a. Patching and replacing gib where required. b. Plastering and skimming walls where required. c. Replace doors where required. d. Remove and replace vanity top in upstairs bathroom. e. Replace and fix architrave where required. f. Remove carpet and relay carpet. g. Remove all rubbish and dispose of. h. Deep clean, wash walls floors and windows from vivid markers and tagging. i. Replace broken curtain rails. j. Replace broken window latches. k. Replace/fix bent aluminium where required. l. Painting.

The quote lacks specificity. It does not include a breakdown of the cost associated with each item, nor does it include the cost of materials, fees, or labour costs.

The landlord advised the Tribunal that the remediation work has been completed. Cleaning and rubbish removal

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) of the Act.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided the Tribunal with three tenancy inspection reports with photographs. The first report (“first report”) was dated 8 July 2024. This report was completed while the third parties were still tenants of the property. The second report (“second report”) was dated 25 October 2024. This report was completed after the third parties had vacated the property and was the first report completed after the tenants signed their tenancy agreement. The final report was dated 3 March 2025 (the “vacate report”).

The landlord confirmed that there was no pre-tenancy inspection report completed at the time the tenants signed their tenancy agreement.

The reports show the condition of the property during and at the conclusion of the tenancy.

The end of tenancy report shows the kitchen had not been cleaned. The oven and rangehood were grease marked and the cupboards had not been wiped out. The floors throughout the property had not been vacuumed or mopped. The walls, light switches, heat pump and skirting boards were dusty, marked and showed evidence of fly dirt. The bathrooms, toilets, showers, and vanity units were dirty and had not been cleaned.

The landlord states that a small amount of rubbish was removed from the property which appeared to be three small items left on a windowsill and a damaged door which was left outside.

Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.

In situations such as these, where the quote does not provide itemised costs, the Tribunal must determine the compensation payable. Having considered the evidence the Tribunal determines that reasonable compensation for cleaning is $800.

The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. The first report shows that a door had been left in the garage of the property when the third party were the responsible tenants.

The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs after the tenants left two cats locked inside the property. The landlord states that the cats soiled the carpet leaving an unpleasant smell. The landlord also commented that there was minor staining at the end of the tenancy.

There is no invoice for carpet cleaning costs and the quote provided by the landlord does not include carpet cleaning. The quote specifically refers to removal and relaying of carpet. As there is no evidence before the Tribunal for the cost of carpet cleaning the claim is dismissed. Changing the locks

The landlord states the tenants failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy resulting in the barrels of the front door and ranch slider being replaced.

The landlord did not provide an invoice for the cost of changing the locks. The quote provided by the landlord did not include costs for changing the locks.

As there is no evidence before the Tribunal for the cost of changing the locks the claim is dismissed. Wall and door remediation and vanity top replacement

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 of the Act.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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 states that the tenants damaged the property and drew the Tribunal’s attention to the following damage that was visible between the first and second reports: a. Hole in the lounge door. b. Graffiti on the wall in the garage. c. Patched holes in both walls in the stairwell. d. Seven patched holes in the wall of bedroom one. e. Cracked vanity in bedroom one ensuite. f. Broken door in bedroom one. g. Cut out hole exposing pipe work in bedroom two. h. Damage to the door frame at the top of the landing.

The landlord states that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and seeks compensation.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the damage was caused by the tenants during their tenancy. The bulk of the damage appears to be in bedroom one. The photographs in the first report do not clearly show the condition of the walls in bedroom one due to the placement of furniture in the room. The cracked vanity is noted in the first report when the third party were the responsible tenants. There was no end of tenancy inspection report completed when the third party left the property. There is no pre-tenancy inspection report showing the condition of the property the day the tenants signed their tenancy agreement. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the damage claimed was caused by the tenants. The claim for compensation for damage listed in paragraph [40] a- h is dismissed.

The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the property caused between 25 October 2024 and the end of the tenancy. The landlord specifically drew the Tribunal’s attention to the photographs in the vacate report showing the following additional damage: a. A gouge mark to the wall in the entrance way. b. A large hole in the wall, in the cupboard under the stairs. c. The light switch coming away from the wall in bedroom one. d. Four large holes in the door in bedroom two. e. One large and one small hole in the door to ensuite two. f. One hole in the wall in the stairwell. g. Cost of removing the carpets due to smell after the tenants abandoned two cats inside the property.

The tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of photographs between the second and vacate reports. The Tribunal finds the tenant’s careless damaged the property and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

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.

In situations such as these where the quote does not provide itemised costs the Tribunal must determine the compensation payable. Having considered the evidence the Tribunal determines that reasonable compensation for wall and door remediation costs is $2,500.00.

The Tribunal notes that the landlord did not present any evidence of broken or missing architrave, broken curtain rails, broken window latches and bent/broken aluminium as specified in the quote and the claim for compensation for these items is dismissed. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] And Country Rentals Limited T/A Ray White - Tuakau As Agent For Montagna Group Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219893 — net $5,898.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: patch, plaster, and repair of walls and two new doors	$2,500.00	Repairs: patch, plaster, and repair of walls and two new doors
Rent arrears	$4,171.43	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,898.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,898.43