What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5289959?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Keanu Te Ra Kienhuis, Peter Hemara and Fraser Cullen at 6

How much money was awarded in case 5289959?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,410.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Glass Door: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $40.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289959?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12250953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5289959?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Keanu Te Ra Kienhuis, Peter Hemara and Fraser Cullen at 6

How much money was awarded in case 5289959?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,410.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Glass Door: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $40.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289959?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12250953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5289959 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289959 — net $11,477.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,410.00	claim for the bond and rubbish removal. Rent arrears and termination
Water rates	$40.80	1986. How much is owed for water rates arrears?
Repairs: Lounge glass door	$3,500.00	Repairs: Lounge glass door
Repairs: Wall repairs	$500.00	Repairs: Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,477.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,477.80

Order

The tenancy of Keanu Te Ra Kienhuis, Peter Hemara and Fraser Cullen at 6 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Prestige Rental Management Limited Will Liu, immediately.
Keanu Te Ra Kienhuis, Peter Hemara and Fraser Cullen must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited Will Liu $11,477.80 immediately, being rent arrears to 4 August 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenants did not attend by video or answer the telephone call made by the Tribunal.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond. At the hearing the Landlord withdrew their claim for the bond and rubbish removal. Rent arrears and termination
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Landlord claimed that professional carpet cleaning was required due to the presence of dog faeces and vomit on the carpet. They stated that a dog had been observed at the property during the tenancy and that Council intervention was required to have the dog removed. The Landlord submitted an ingoing inspection report and an invoice for carpet cleaning as evidence from the Property Manager. However, no independent report from a professional carpet cleaner was provided to substantiate the condition of the carpet, the amount claimed or that there was damage was caused by the dog.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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 identified during the tenancy: damage to the walls and a smashed glass lounge door. The Landlord claimed $500.00 for approximately five holes found in the walls of the two bedrooms. They asserted that the damage appeared to be intentional and was discovered during the exit inspection. Supporting evidence included photographs of the damage, the ingoing inspection report, and an invoice from the Landlord to the tenant. The Landlord also stated that the property owner is a developer and personally estimated the cost of repairs. However, no documentation was provided to establish the owner’s building qualifications, nor was an invoice supplied directly from the owner.
The Landlord further claimed $3,500.00 for repairs to the smashed glass lounge door. They provided photographs of the damage, an ingoing inspection report confirming the door was intact at the commencement of the tenancy, and an invoice quoting an amount exceeding the claim. The Landlord submitted that one of the tenants reported the damage resulted from a physical altercation between the other two tenants.
In considering the evidence, including the photographs and the ingoing inspection report, I find that the damage to the walls and glass door exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to refute liability for the damage.
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.
As Prestige Rental Management Limited Will Liu has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289959 — net $11,477.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,410.00	claim for the bond and rubbish removal. Rent arrears and termination
Water rates	$40.80	1986. How much is owed for water rates arrears?
Repairs: Lounge glass door	$3,500.00	Repairs: Lounge glass door
Repairs: Wall repairs	$500.00	Repairs: Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,477.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,477.80

Order

The tenancy of Keanu Te Ra Kienhuis, Peter Hemara and Fraser Cullen at 6 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Prestige Rental Management Limited Will Liu, immediately.
Keanu Te Ra Kienhuis, Peter Hemara and Fraser Cullen must pay Prestige Rental Management Limited Will Liu $11,477.80 immediately, being rent arrears to 4 August 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenants did not attend by video or answer the telephone call made by the Tribunal.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond. At the hearing the Landlord withdrew their claim for the bond and rubbish removal. Rent arrears and termination
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Landlord claimed that professional carpet cleaning was required due to the presence of dog faeces and vomit on the carpet. They stated that a dog had been observed at the property during the tenancy and that Council intervention was required to have the dog removed. The Landlord submitted an ingoing inspection report and an invoice for carpet cleaning as evidence from the Property Manager. However, no independent report from a professional carpet cleaner was provided to substantiate the condition of the carpet, the amount claimed or that there was damage was caused by the dog.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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 identified during the tenancy: damage to the walls and a smashed glass lounge door. The Landlord claimed $500.00 for approximately five holes found in the walls of the two bedrooms. They asserted that the damage appeared to be intentional and was discovered during the exit inspection. Supporting evidence included photographs of the damage, the ingoing inspection report, and an invoice from the Landlord to the tenant. The Landlord also stated that the property owner is a developer and personally estimated the cost of repairs. However, no documentation was provided to establish the owner’s building qualifications, nor was an invoice supplied directly from the owner.
The Landlord further claimed $3,500.00 for repairs to the smashed glass lounge door. They provided photographs of the damage, an ingoing inspection report confirming the door was intact at the commencement of the tenancy, and an invoice quoting an amount exceeding the claim. The Landlord submitted that one of the tenants reported the damage resulted from a physical altercation between the other two tenants.
In considering the evidence, including the photographs and the ingoing inspection report, I find that the damage to the walls and glass door exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to refute liability for the damage.
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.
As Prestige Rental Management Limited Will Liu has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289959 — Rent arrears at 6 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289959 — Rent arrears at 6 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

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

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

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