What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342931 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5342931?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Hole Behind Door: $68.52 awarded to landlord; Missing Door Handle: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $975.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342931?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12710158-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342931 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5342931?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Hole Behind Door: $68.52 awarded to landlord; Missing Door Handle: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $975.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342931?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12710158-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Wymondley Road, Otara, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342931 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342931 — net $1,354.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$975.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Hole behind door	$68.52	Repairs: Hole behind door
Repairs: Missing door handle	$60.00	Repairs: Missing door handle
Net award	$1,354.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,354.02

Only the landlord attended the hearing that took place by video conference. The tenant did not attend. I telephoned her but her number went to voicemail.

The tenant has been sent the application and notice of this hearing by way of email. The tenant gave the email address in writing to the landlord upon vacating the tenancy for issues arising out of the end of the tenancy which included a reference to claims to the Tribunal. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The property was left with discrete areas that required additional cleaning attention. The landlord has proven that the oven and rangehood, kitchen cupboards, kitchen floor, limited aspects of the bathroom and window sills needed cleaning. I award the landlord $250 in respect of cleaning which I consider to be a reasonable sum on the basis of the evidence before me.

Rubbish was left at the property which the landlord says amounted to 6 cubic metres. Photographs were provided to show the nature and amount of rubbish.

The landlord incurred a cost of $1075.25 in disposing of the rubbish at the property but reduced its claim by $100 to account for the fact that certain items that were found in the sub floor may not have been (and some, such as roof tiles, were unlikely to be) the tenants.

The landlord says this is a reasonable reduction because now there would be no charge to remove any of the items left under the sub floor. Those items did not amount to very much of the rubbish disposed of. The majority of the cost was the larger items left outside and in the shed.

Once the deduction of $100 is made from the initial charge, I find the sum claimed to be reasonable given the nature and amount of the items left excluding those found in the sub floor.

The sum awarded is proven.

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 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are taken into account.

I accept that during the course of the tenancy a hole has been caused behind the living room door. This appears to have been caused by the door handle going into the wall. I find this to be more than fair wear and tear and is most likely intentional damage. If a door is opened with the force that would have been necessary to create the hole pictured in the wall then damage would have been a certainty. The sum ordered is proven. I do not consider it appropriate to depreciate this sum. The landlord has only claimed for patch repairs, so I do not consider that the landlord has a benefit.

I accept that during the course of the tenancy a door handle has been removed completely from a door. I find this to be more than fair wear and tear and is most likely intentional damage. There was no evidence of the type of door handle in place at the start of the tenancy or its age. However, the ingoing property inspection report records the condition of the room as good and the door handles otherwise throughout the property appear to be modern in style and in good condition. I consider the sum of $60 as a replacement cost to account for some depreciation to be reasonable.

The landlord says that the rangehood required maintenance of the buttons. I am not satisfied the landlord has established damage in respect of this or that what has occurred is anything other than fair wear and tear. This is dismissed.

The claim in relation to the range hood included both maintenance and cleaning costs. I have accounted for the cleaning of the range hood in my cleaning award made above so no additional sum is ordered for that here.

The landlord withdraws its claim for the reattaching of a door handle in the living room. Filing fee and suppression

The landlord did not want to be reimbursed the filing fee so I have not awarded this.

Neither party sought name suppression and I see no reason to make such an order. Therefore, no suppression orders are made.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342931 — net $1,354.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$975.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Hole behind door	$68.52	Repairs: Hole behind door
Repairs: Missing door handle	$60.00	Repairs: Missing door handle
Net award	$1,354.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,354.02

Only the landlord attended the hearing that took place by video conference. The tenant did not attend. I telephoned her but her number went to voicemail.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

Rubbish was left at the property which the landlord says amounted to 6 cubic metres. Photographs were provided to show the nature and amount of rubbish.

Once the deduction of $100 is made from the initial charge, I find the sum claimed to be reasonable given the nature and amount of the items left excluding those found in the sub floor.

The sum awarded is proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord withdraws its claim for the reattaching of a door handle in the living room. Filing fee and suppression

The landlord did not want to be reimbursed the filing fee so I have not awarded this.

Neither party sought name suppression and I see no reason to make such an order. Therefore, no suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342931 — Cleanliness at 40 Wymondley Road, Otara, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342931 — Cleanliness at 40 Wymondley Road, Otara, Auckland 2025

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