What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5465310?

The tribunal order states: Lisa Renei Mona Mari Nuku and Jacob-John Tuara Marama must pay Kāinga

How much money was awarded in case 5465310?

Cleaning: $1,011.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,066.96 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $907.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,419.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,911.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465310?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13598577-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5465310?

The tribunal order states: Lisa Renei Mona Mari Nuku and Jacob-John Tuara Marama must pay Kāinga

How much money was awarded in case 5465310?

Cleaning: $1,011.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,066.96 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $907.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,419.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,911.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465310?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13598577-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12B Pershore Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465310 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465310 — net $13,316.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,011.32	Cleaning
Window repairs: Door and windows in bedrooms 1.2,3 kitchen and lounge	$3,911.38	Window repairs: Door and windows in bedrooms 1.2,3 kitchen and lounge
Rubbish removal: plus, tyre	$4,419.44	Rubbish removal: plus, tyre
Repairs: Patched holes in walls and doors	$907.71	Repairs: Patched holes in walls and doors
Replacement carpet	$3,066.96	Replacement carpet
Net award	$13,316.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,316.81

Order

Lisa Renei Mona Mari Nuku and Jacob-John Tuara Marama must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $13,316.81 immediately for rubbish removal, cleaning, and repairs, as calculated and shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$1,011.32 Window repairs: Door and windows in bedrooms 1.2,3 kitchen and lounge $3,911.38 Rubbish removal: plus, tyre$4,419.44 Repairs: Patched holes in walls and doors$907.71 Replacement carpet$3,066.96 Total award$13,316.81 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$13,316.81

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend. The tenant has been served with the notice of hearing and has not communicated with the Tribunal seeking an adjournment. I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the tenant.
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 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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a detailed pre let inspection report and photos and an exit inspection and photos.
The photos at the end of the tenancy show a property that was left in a very dirty condition with extensive rubbish left throughout the interior and exterior of the property.
The landlord has also provided detailed invoices for the cost of remedying the tenants breach of their obligation at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants kept unauthorised dogs in the property. The dogs had to be removed by the SPCA after the tenants had abandoned the dogs in the property. The dogs were unable for a number of days to get out of the property and so used the carpet as a toileting area. The carpet was covered in faeces and smelt terribly of urine. The carpet was beyond cleaning.
The costs of the cleaning were $1011.32 in total, which was for the full house clean, and specific cleaning of the kitchen cupboards, stove, oven and rangehood.
The rubbish was spread throughout each and every room in the house, the exterior of the house and shed. The landlord incurred the cost of $4419.44 to remove the rubbish and one tyre left at the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their costs for the breach of the tenants’ obligations 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -The carpet had to be replaced due to the dog’s use of the carpet as a toilet. -The missing door frame -Patching up holes throughout the property -Replacing glass in multiple windows and timber door.
The carpet was considered beyond cleaning particularly due to the biohazard of dog faeces and urine. The smell from the urine and faeces could not be remedied by cleaning and had to be replaced in bedrooms 1, 2, 3, the entrance way/hall and lounge.
The tenants had damaged the front door frame, and it had to be fully replaced. There were multiple holes, dents, and marked throughout the property in the walls that had to be replastered and repainted.
There were smashed windows in the lounge, kitchen, and bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and the front timber door.
The photos and exit report clearly show the damage that has occurred during this tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts claimed by the landlord have had depreciation taken off the costs sought. Therefore, I do not need to consider depreciation.
The landlord has been successful with their claims for damages to the property and I consider they have proven each claim made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465310 — net $13,316.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,011.32	Cleaning
Window repairs: Door and windows in bedrooms 1.2,3 kitchen and lounge	$3,911.38	Window repairs: Door and windows in bedrooms 1.2,3 kitchen and lounge
Rubbish removal: plus, tyre	$4,419.44	Rubbish removal: plus, tyre
Repairs: Patched holes in walls and doors	$907.71	Repairs: Patched holes in walls and doors
Replacement carpet	$3,066.96	Replacement carpet
Net award	$13,316.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,316.81

Order

Lisa Renei Mona Mari Nuku and Jacob-John Tuara Marama must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $13,316.81 immediately for rubbish removal, cleaning, and repairs, as calculated and shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$1,011.32 Window repairs: Door and windows in bedrooms 1.2,3 kitchen and lounge $3,911.38 Rubbish removal: plus, tyre$4,419.44 Repairs: Patched holes in walls and doors$907.71 Replacement carpet$3,066.96 Total award$13,316.81 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$13,316.81

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend. The tenant has been served with the notice of hearing and has not communicated with the Tribunal seeking an adjournment. I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the tenant.
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 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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a detailed pre let inspection report and photos and an exit inspection and photos.
The photos at the end of the tenancy show a property that was left in a very dirty condition with extensive rubbish left throughout the interior and exterior of the property.
The landlord has also provided detailed invoices for the cost of remedying the tenants breach of their obligation at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants kept unauthorised dogs in the property. The dogs had to be removed by the SPCA after the tenants had abandoned the dogs in the property. The dogs were unable for a number of days to get out of the property and so used the carpet as a toileting area. The carpet was covered in faeces and smelt terribly of urine. The carpet was beyond cleaning.
The costs of the cleaning were $1011.32 in total, which was for the full house clean, and specific cleaning of the kitchen cupboards, stove, oven and rangehood.
The rubbish was spread throughout each and every room in the house, the exterior of the house and shed. The landlord incurred the cost of $4419.44 to remove the rubbish and one tyre left at the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their costs for the breach of the tenants’ obligations 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -The carpet had to be replaced due to the dog’s use of the carpet as a toilet. -The missing door frame -Patching up holes throughout the property -Replacing glass in multiple windows and timber door.
The carpet was considered beyond cleaning particularly due to the biohazard of dog faeces and urine. The smell from the urine and faeces could not be remedied by cleaning and had to be replaced in bedrooms 1, 2, 3, the entrance way/hall and lounge.
The tenants had damaged the front door frame, and it had to be fully replaced. There were multiple holes, dents, and marked throughout the property in the walls that had to be replastered and repainted.
There were smashed windows in the lounge, kitchen, and bedrooms 1, 2, 3 and the front timber door.
The photos and exit report clearly show the damage that has occurred during this tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts claimed by the landlord have had depreciation taken off the costs sought. Therefore, I do not need to consider depreciation.
The landlord has been successful with their claims for damages to the property and I consider they have proven each claim made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465310 — Property damage at 12B Pershore Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465310 — Property damage at 12B Pershore Place, Mangere, Auckland 2022

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