What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340225 about?

The tribunal order states: Casino Panoho must pay [The landlord/s] $4,491.50 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5340225?

Cleaning: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $337.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340225?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13308770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340225 about?

The tribunal order states: Casino Panoho must pay [The landlord/s] $4,491.50 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5340225?

Cleaning: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $337.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340225?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13308770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Matthews Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340225 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

29 Matthews Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340225 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340225 — net $4,491.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: four locks	$337.00	Lock/key replacement: four locks
Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs	$437.00	Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs
Rubbish removal	$1,012.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,450.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: to walls and doors - 9 holes	$977.50	Repairs: to walls and doors - 9 holes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,491.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,491.50

Claims and awards for application 5340225 — net $4,491.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement: four locks

Amount: $337.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: four locks

Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs

Amount: $437.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,012.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $1,450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Casino Panoho must pay [The landlord/s] $4,491.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s request for name suppression is approved.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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?

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The lawns and edges were overgrown.
The amount ordered for cleaning and lawn mowing/garden work are reduced to reflect that the standard required of a departing tenant is “reasonably clean and tidy” and that a landlord will incur some cost to restore the property to a condition where it can be relet. Despite that observation the photos show a property that was left well short of the required standard and the amounts ordered are considered fair and reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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.
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 caused during the tenancy: the side door on the garage was damaged (including the framing and glass) and there were numerous holes to walls and doors throughout the property. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The amounts ordered are for actual repair costs only.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved the requested name suppression for the landlord.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340225 — net $4,491.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: four locks	$337.00	Lock/key replacement: four locks
Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs	$437.00	Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs
Rubbish removal	$1,012.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,450.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: to walls and doors - 9 holes	$977.50	Repairs: to walls and doors - 9 holes
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,491.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,491.50

Claims and awards for application 5340225 — net $4,491.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lock/key replacement: four locks

Amount: $337.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: four locks

Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs

Amount: $437.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to garage door, including glass repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,012.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $1,450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Casino Panoho must pay [The landlord/s] $4,491.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s request for name suppression is approved.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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?

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The lawns and edges were overgrown.
The amount ordered for cleaning and lawn mowing/garden work are reduced to reflect that the standard required of a departing tenant is “reasonably clean and tidy” and that a landlord will incur some cost to restore the property to a condition where it can be relet. Despite that observation the photos show a property that was left well short of the required standard and the amounts ordered are considered fair and reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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.
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 caused during the tenancy: the side door on the garage was damaged (including the framing and glass) and there were numerous holes to walls and doors throughout the property. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The amounts ordered are for actual repair costs only.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved the requested name suppression for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340225 — Property damage at 29 Matthews Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340225 — Property damage at 29 Matthews Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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