What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240012?

The tribunal order states: Rhys Patterson to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 5240012?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $262.13 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $511.29 awarded to tenant; Electrical: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $375.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240012?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12183890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5240012?

The tribunal order states: Rhys Patterson to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 5240012?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $262.13 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $511.29 awarded to tenant; Electrical: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $375.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240012?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12183890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 7, 126 Lynwood Road, New Lynn, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240012 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240012 — net $1,462.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$402.50		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00		Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$375.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: painting	$500.00		Repairs: painting
Repairs: electrical	$200.00		Repairs: electrical
Lock/key replacement	$262.13		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent refund		$511.29	Rent refund
Total award	$1,973.63	$511.29
Net award	$1,462.34
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,462.34

Rhys Patterson to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As Agent For C. Harris $1,462.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3001811-017) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As Agent For C. Harris: $1,462.34 Rhys Patterson: $217.66

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing and was represented by Ms Van Huysen. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The landlord produced information that satisfies me the tenant has been served notice of this hearing by a private investigation company.

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

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2024. Possession of the premises was granted to the landlord in order NZTT 4976294. As of that date, the tenant had overpaid rent to the amount of $511.29. This is set off against the compensation ordered against the tenant.

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 landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the tenant did not return the keys, no cleaning had been undertaken at the premises, a considerable amount of rubbish and belongings of no value were left behind and the lawns were left unmaintained.

The landlord stated the premises were dirty and smelled strongly of cigarette smoke. The carpets were stained and also smelled of cigarette smoke.

Photographs and invoices were produced in support of the amounts claimed.

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.

The landlord is claiming $2,323.00 for repainting the walls, skirting boards and window frames. The landlord produced end-of-tenancy photographs that show the walls have many small dents and marks, and some larger areas of damage, some of which have been partially repaired. There was no damage evident to skirting boards and window frames.

The landlord is claiming $406.67 for repairs to broken sockets, a bathroom panel and a corroded window latch. An invoice and photographs were produced in support of this claim.

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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

When I consider the tenancy lasted almost three years and the property was in very good but not perfect condition at the start of the tenancy, and that the property has had previous tenancies, I determine that some of the damage amounts to careless damage and some of the damage, such as the smaller furniture dents in the living area, amounts to fair wear and tear.

I note the broken electrical socket photographed looks approximately forty years old, and the corroded window latch (no photograph provided) is likely to have begun corroding many years ago.

Considering the above factors, I determine partial awards for repairs and painting are appropriate. Service costs

The landlord is claiming $667.00 for hiring a private investigator to locate and serve the documents on the tenant.

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2024. A Tenancy Tribunal Order giving possession of the premises to the landlord is dated 6 September 2024. Service appears to have been made on the tenant on 29 January 2025.

The landlord explained that because of the tenant’s movements it was difficult to locate the tenant after the end of the tenancy.

Section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 provides that service on a tenant is considered effective by delivering the documents to the tenant’s tenancy address within two months of the tenancy ending, or by emailing the tenant on an email address provided as an address for service by the tenant, within two months (as it then was) of the tenancy ending. An email address for the tenant is included in the tenancy agreement as an address for service.

For the first two months after the end of a tenancy, a tenant has a responsibility to check the addresses they have provided as service addresses, for legal documents. After two months, it becomes more difficult for a landlord.

The landlord had legal means available to them to serve the tenant at no cost following the end of the tenancy by delivering the documents for the claim to the tenancy address or to the tenant’s email address. They did not avail themselves of these means. I consider it unreasonable to make an order against the tenant for the costs of service, when the landlord chose not to use the no-cost means that were available to them. This claim is not proved.

I also consider it also to be in the interests of justice that applications to the Tribunal are brought in a timely manner.

Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As Agent For C. Harris has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5240012 — net $1,462.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$402.50		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00		Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$375.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: painting	$500.00		Repairs: painting
Repairs: electrical	$200.00		Repairs: electrical
Lock/key replacement	$262.13		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent refund		$511.29	Rent refund
Total award	$1,973.63	$511.29
Net award	$1,462.34
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,462.34

Rhys Patterson to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As Agent For C. Harris $1,462.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord stated the premises were dirty and smelled strongly of cigarette smoke. The carpets were stained and also smelled of cigarette smoke.

Photographs and invoices were produced in support of the amounts claimed.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming $406.67 for repairs to broken sockets, a bathroom panel and a corroded window latch. An invoice and photographs were produced in support of this claim.

I note the broken electrical socket photographed looks approximately forty years old, and the corroded window latch (no photograph provided) is likely to have begun corroding many years ago.

Considering the above factors, I determine partial awards for repairs and painting are appropriate. Service costs

The landlord is claiming $667.00 for hiring a private investigator to locate and serve the documents on the tenant.

The landlord explained that because of the tenant’s movements it was difficult to locate the tenant after the end of the tenancy.

I also consider it also to be in the interests of justice that applications to the Tribunal are brought in a timely manner.

Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited - As Agent For C. Harris has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240012 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 7, 126 Lynwood Road, New Lynn, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240012 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 7, 126 Lynwood Road, New Lynn, Auckland

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