What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425308?

The tribunal order states: Carla Renee Munu must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,655.08

How much money was awarded in case 5425308?

Cleaning: $797.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $326.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Door: $217.01 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreci…: $672.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,642.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425308?

The tribunal order states: Carla Renee Munu must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,655.08

How much money was awarded in case 5425308?

Cleaning: $797.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $326.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Door: $217.01 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreci…: $672.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,642.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13425417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Valdale Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425308 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425308 — net $4,655.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated	$672.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated
Repairs: Replace broken door	$217.01	Repairs: Replace broken door
Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes	$326.66	Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes
Rubbish removal	$2,642.40	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$797.01	Cleaning
Net award	$4,655.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,655.08

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.

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, 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 exit phots create an immediate impression of abandonment. This was not the case. The large volume of items left, as well as the significant cleaning effort required, as shown in the exit photographs, support the large cost incurred by the landlord, and now sought as compensation.

The total claimed for cleaning was $797.01 and this total is accepted as a valid cost to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required of the tenant at exit.

The total claimed for rubbish removal was $2,642.40 and this total is accepted as consistent with the evidence of effort required.

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 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.

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: a. Door. An internal door had a hole and side damage with what appears a result of forced entry. The door was replaced at a cost of $217.01 and this is awarded. b. Walls. Three major holes, made by significant force that must be considered intentional, as well as three smaller ones, were repaired at a claimed cost of $326.66. The photographic evidence is conclusive on the need, and tenant liability. The costs are accepted and awarded as claimed. c. Carpet. The living room carpet was stained beyond repair or cleaning. It was replaced and the landlord sought the depreciated loss of $672.00. The carpet was new at or around the start of the tenancy and the depreciated applied is consistent with what the Tribunal would assess. This is awarded in full.

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 taken into account betterment and depreciation as calculated by the landlord. 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.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425308 — net $4,655.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated	$672.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated
Repairs: Replace broken door	$217.01	Repairs: Replace broken door
Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes	$326.66	Repairs: Multiple wall damage (holes
Rubbish removal	$2,642.40	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$797.01	Cleaning
Net award	$4,655.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,655.08

Order

Carla Renee Munu must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,655.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
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, 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 exit phots create an immediate impression of abandonment. This was not the case. The large volume of items left, as well as the significant cleaning effort required, as shown in the exit photographs, support the large cost incurred by the landlord, and now sought as compensation.
The total claimed for cleaning was $797.01 and this total is accepted as a valid cost to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required of the tenant at exit.
The total claimed for rubbish removal was $2,642.40 and this total is accepted as consistent with the evidence of effort required.
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 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.
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: a. Door. An internal door had a hole and side damage with what appears a result of forced entry. The door was replaced at a cost of $217.01 and this is awarded. b. Walls. Three major holes, made by significant force that must be considered intentional, as well as three smaller ones, were repaired at a claimed cost of $326.66. The photographic evidence is conclusive on the need, and tenant liability. The costs are accepted and awarded as claimed. c. Carpet. The living room carpet was stained beyond repair or cleaning. It was replaced and the landlord sought the depreciated loss of $672.00. The carpet was new at or around the start of the tenancy and the depreciated applied is consistent with what the Tribunal would assess. This is awarded in full.
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 taken into account betterment and depreciation as calculated by the landlord. 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425308 — Cleanliness at 10 Valdale Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425308 — Cleanliness at 10 Valdale Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

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