How much money was awarded in case 5314623?

Cleaning: $93.05 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 2 Doors: $370.89 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $502.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314623?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314623?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12564780-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5314623?

Cleaning: $93.05 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 2 Doors: $370.89 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $502.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314623?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314623?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12564780-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314623 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314623 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314623 — net $784.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$93.05	Oven/stove cleaning
Rubbish removal	$502.67	Rubbish removal
Repairs: replace 2 doors	$370.89	Repairs: replace 2 doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$784.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$784.61

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.

Tangi-Haere Gabrielle Snowden must pay [The landlord/s] $784.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $210.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] both attended the video conference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 936, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.

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

The landlord said the tenancy ended on 27 February 2025.

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 (“RTA”).

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

The landlord said the tenant left the oven very dirty. They provided a photograph of the oven at the end of the tenancy, which showed a thick black layer of dirt at the bottom of the oven. The landlord claimed $93.05 (GST inclusive) to clean the oven and provided an invoice showing the amount claimed. I find the landlord has proved the tenant likely left the oven dirty and it needed cleaning to the amount claimed of $93.05, which I find reasonable given the evidence. Therefore, I award $93.05 to the landlord to clean the oven. Rubbish removal

The landlord said the tenant left rubbish at the end of the tenancy and provided photographs of the rubbish left. The photographs provided showed a single bed, rubbish left in the basement, including an old bag of cement which had compounded, a pile of washing in the laundry, rubbish in the laundry sink and other items of rubbish. The landlord claimed $502.67 (GST inclusive) to remove this rubbish left by the tenant and for disposal of all the rubbish, including dumping fees. I find this to be a reasonable cost given the evidence of the amount and size of the rubbish left, and so award $502.67 to the landlord for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy.

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.

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. Replacement of 2 doors

The landlord said the tenants removed 4 doors from the property during the tenancy, but said they found 2 of the doors. The landlord claimed for the remaining missing 2 doors which they had to get replaced.

The landlord said the tenant removed the interior doors in the dining room and the living room deliberately. They indicated they were hoping to find them in the basement but could not locate these missing 2 doors.

Given the evidence, I find this is intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacement minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.

The landlord claimed $570.60 to replace 2 doors, being $285.30 per door. I find the cost claimed to be reasonable before considering depreciation.

In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.

In relation to the age of the missing interior doors, the landlord said they would have been around 7 years old. The landlord showed a photograph of a similar interior door in the property, during the hearing, which showed a modern, newer looking door. I accept from this that the missing interior doors, which the landlord said were similar, would have been around 7 years old.

Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of interior doors in a rental property is around 20 years. As such, I deduct the $570.60 cost I find reasonable to replace the 2 interior doors by 35% for depreciation to an award of $370.89 for replacing the 2 missing interior doors.

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

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314623 — net $784.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$93.05	Oven/stove cleaning
Rubbish removal	$502.67	Rubbish removal
Repairs: replace 2 doors	$370.89	Repairs: replace 2 doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$784.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$784.61

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.

Tangi-Haere Gabrielle Snowden must pay [The landlord/s] $784.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $210.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

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

The landlord said the tenancy ended on 27 February 2025.

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

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $570.60 to replace 2 doors, being $285.30 per door. I find the cost claimed to be reasonable before considering depreciation.

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

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314623 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314623 — Property damage

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