What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288059 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $5,972.75 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5288059?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $465.75 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288059?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12746298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288059 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $5,972.75 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5288059?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $465.75 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288059?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12746298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Waimate Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288059 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288059 — net $5,972.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: kitchen	$1,500.00		Repairs: kitchen
Repairs: bathroom vanity	$900.00		Repairs: bathroom vanity
Repairs: walls	$5,000.00		Repairs: walls
Window repairs	$465.75		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond since refunded to landlord		$1,920.00	Bond since refunded to landlord
Total award	$7,892.75	$1,920.00
Net award	$5,972.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,972.75

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in January 2025.

This was a seven year tenancy. The bond has since been refunded to the landlord and held on credit towards these claims.

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 onus remained on the landlord to prove that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy, and that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord adduced no photographs showing the extent of rubbish left behind.

The tenant’s photographs indicate that the premises had been cleaned and rubbish, including the lean-to erection by the tenants, have been fully removed.

It is not sufficient for the landlord to only produce receipts and invoices to justify their claim.

The amounts claimed for rubbish removal has not been 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.

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 walls were intentionally damaged during the tenancy.

The windows, kitchen cupboards, and bathroom vanity were also damaged during the tenancy.

The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Only 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.

I have had regard to the lack of pre-tenancy inspection photos in making the above awards in favour of the landlord.

The bond that has been refunded to the landlord will be used to offset some of the above amounts proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288059 — net $5,972.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: kitchen	$1,500.00		Repairs: kitchen
Repairs: bathroom vanity	$900.00		Repairs: bathroom vanity
Repairs: walls	$5,000.00		Repairs: walls
Window repairs	$465.75		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond since refunded to landlord		$1,920.00	Bond since refunded to landlord
Total award	$7,892.75	$1,920.00
Net award	$5,972.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,972.75

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $5,972.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in January 2025.
This was a seven year tenancy. The bond has since been refunded to the landlord and held on credit towards these claims.

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 onus remained on the landlord to prove that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy, and that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord adduced no photographs showing the extent of rubbish left behind.
The tenant’s photographs indicate that the premises had been cleaned and rubbish, including the lean-to erection by the tenants, have been fully removed.
It is not sufficient for the landlord to only produce receipts and invoices to justify their claim.
The amounts claimed for rubbish removal has not been 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.
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 walls were intentionally damaged during the tenancy.
The windows, kitchen cupboards, and bathroom vanity were also damaged during the tenancy.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Only 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.
I have had regard to the lack of pre-tenancy inspection photos in making the above awards in favour of the landlord.
The bond that has been refunded to the landlord will be used to offset some of the above amounts proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288059 — Property damage at 31 Waimate Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288059 — Property damage at 31 Waimate Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

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

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

Frequently asked questions