What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4501887?

The tribunal order states: Holly Parlane must pay Damerell Group Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4501887?

Cleaning: $301.88 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $252.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,137.14 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $7,220.85 awarded to landlord; Replacing Bathroom And Master Bedroo…: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Replacing Blinds In The Living Area: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $85.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501887?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501887?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9591400-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4501887?

The tribunal order states: Holly Parlane must pay Damerell Group Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4501887?

Cleaning: $301.88 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $252.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,137.14 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $7,220.85 awarded to landlord; Replacing Bathroom And Master Bedroo…: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Replacing Blinds In The Living Area: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $85.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501887?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501887?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9591400-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

323A Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4501887 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

323A Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4501887 — Rent arrears | 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 4501887 — net $10,569.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 February 2023	$3,137.14	Rent arrears to 22 February 2023
Carpet Cleaning	$301.88	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$252.55	Lock/key replacement
Replacing blinds in the living area	$552.00	Replacing blinds in the living area
Fixing damaged floor board	$644.00	Fixing damaged floor board
Replacing bathroom and master bedroom doors	$672.75	Replacing bathroom and master bedroom doors
Repainting	$7,220.85	Repainting
Rubbish removal	$85.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,569.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,569.11

Claims and awards for application 4501887 — net $10,569.11 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 22 February 2023

Amount: $3,137.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 22 February 2023

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $301.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $402.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $252.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replacing blinds in the living area

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacing blinds in the living area

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Holly Parlane must pay Damerell Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Corner $10,569.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (3457088-008) to Damerell Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Corner immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 22 February 2023$3,137.14 Carpet Cleaning$301.88 Cleaning$402.50 Lock/key replacement$252.55 Replacing blinds in the living area$552.00 Fixing damaged floor board$644.00 Replacing bathroom and master bedroom doors$672.75 Repainting$7,220.85 Rubbish removal$85.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$13,289.11 Bond$2,720.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,569.11

Reasons

Mr Haabjoern appeared as the landlord’s agent.
The tenant, Ms Parlane did not appear.
As Ms Parlane did not seem interested in the present application, I proceeded with the proceedings in her absence.
The tenancy commenced on 21 May 2021 and the tenant vacated the premises on 22 February 2023. The weekly rent was $680.
Mr. Haabjoern presented the case to me in a well-prepared manner and made persuasive arguments.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 February 2023, and Mr Haabjoern provided rent records that proved the amount owed at the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing, Mr Haabjoern informed me that a previous Tribunal Order 4331835, dated 29 March 2022, recorded that Ms Parlane owed rent to 29 March 2022 for a total of $1,942.85.
Mr Haabjoern also said that Ms Parlane paid $720 per week, which was $40 more than her agreed rent of $680, to cover her rent arrears under Tribunal Order 4331835.
However, Ms Parlane had not paid off her previous rent arrears before accruing further rent arrears. Therefore, I suggested that it might be easier to record the total rent arrears up to the date Ms Parlane vacated the premises rather than identifying how much rent arrears were paid under the previous Tribunal Order 4331835. I considered this the most pragmatic way of approaching the issue of rent arrears. Mr Haabjoern agreed with this approach.
I reviewed the rent summary and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the total rent arrears owed by Ms Parlane were $3,137.14.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
In mid-April 2023, Ms Parlane couriered a set of keys to Mr Haabjoern which was more than 2 months after she had vacated the premises.
Ms Parlane did not return the keys immediately to Mr Haabjoern upon vacating the premises, and as a result, the landlord had to replace the keys.
Mr Haabjoern took me through the evidence in the hearing. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Parlane did not leave the premises reasonably celan and tidy, she did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys in a timely manner.
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: a. Replacing blinds in the living area; b. Fixing damaged floorboard; c. Replacing bathroom door; d. Replace master bedroom door; and e. Repainting. Replacing blinds in the living area
Mr Haabjoern’s evidence is that there is a badly stained blind in the living room that needs to be replaced. The blinds in the living room were new when Ms Parlane moved in. The landlord replaced the damaged blinds with a cheaper and simpler system. The damaged blinds are hexagon-shaped and badly stained. They are also destroyed on the edges, possibly due to little hands pulling or crushing them. The stain seems to be from a spilled drink that has blown across the blinds and onto the interior of the blinds.
Mr Haabjoern submitted that “the cost of this type of blind was over $1,000, but the landlord replaced it with a simple white roller blind that cost around $500. The landlord did not want to install expensive blinds again in the property.”
Mr Haabjoern sought $552 for the replacement of cheaper blinds in the living area.
I accept Mr Haabjoern’s submissions that the quality of the damaged blinds was far better than the present. There was no “improvement” to the blinds other than the blinds were new. Mr Haabjoern said in his evidence “... we've got the roller blinds, you can no longer they're either closed all the way or open all the way. You don't get that natural light, you don't get the privacy, and they don't look nearly as nice.”
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it is appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the entire invoice for $552.00. Fixing damaged floorboard
Mr Haabjoern said in the hearing “God knows how that happened, because that's a floorboard and it's had something come down on it so hard that it's dropped at about a centimetre”.
Mr Haabjoern referred me to photos which clearly showed a dropped floorboard, about a centimetre. It is unclear what caused the drop, however, it is evident that extreme force was applied to the floorboard.
Mr Haabjoern said in evidence that “the floorboard, that's old oak floorboarding, we've just got the standard bit of recycled timber. It doesn't match in colour, it's not the same. The current floor is shiny and this one's more dull. We could have gone to a lot more effort to try and replace it, like for like at a much higher cost.” The landlord did not do so.
Mr Haabjoern argued that there was no improvement. As I have indicated earlier, I accept Mr Haabjoern’s submissions on this point.
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it is appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the entire invoice for $644.00. Replacing bathroom door and master bedroom door
Mr Haabjoern referred me to photos which clearly showed the damage to the doors. The force used to cause the damage was significant and intentional.
It is not clear who did the damage to the doors. However, the person must had Ms Parlane’s permission to enter the premises. This being the case, Ms Parlane is responsible for the damage to the doors.
Mr Haabjoern submitted the same point as he did earlier. I record I accepted his submissions and that no further deduction for depreciation and improvement is appropriate.
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it is appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the entire invoice for $672.75. Repainting
Mr Haabjoern told me in the hearing that the house was repainted in 2020. The previous tenant before Ms Parlane was a professional who looked after the property.
Mr Haabjoern said in evidence that during the routine inspection, he found “every room had damaged the paintwork”. Mr Haabjoern “... found that the tenant had repainted parts of the hallway and kitchen with different paints. The tenant advised it had been done by a professional painter who colour matched paint, although she never provided any evidence this was done by a professional painter.”
Mr Haabjoern then suggested Ms Parlane get the painter back because the job was not up to the standard and the paint was a different colour.
Ms Parlane did not reengage with her painter. Mr Haabjoern did not appear surprised that Ms Parlane had caused more damage to the walls that it was probably more cost effective if Ms Parlane did not try to repaint either by herself or by a not-qualified painter.
Mr Haabjoern said “... ultimately she was trying to do the right thing by covering up the marks and the damage that she'd made. But when it's the wrong colour and it's throughout the whole house, we didn't really have any other choice. We just had to paint the whole thing.”
While Mr Haabjoern argued the same point, I was not persuaded that the landlord did not “improve” the property when he repainted the entire house. I told Mr Haabjoern that I did not consider 20% as a reasonable deduction for depreciation and improvement to the property.
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the 70% of the invoice or $7,220.85.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Filing Fee
Because Damerell Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Corner has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 4501887 — net $10,569.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 February 2023	$3,137.14	Rent arrears to 22 February 2023
Carpet Cleaning	$301.88	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$252.55	Lock/key replacement
Replacing blinds in the living area	$552.00	Replacing blinds in the living area
Fixing damaged floor board	$644.00	Fixing damaged floor board
Replacing bathroom and master bedroom doors	$672.75	Replacing bathroom and master bedroom doors
Repainting	$7,220.85	Repainting
Rubbish removal	$85.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,569.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,569.11

Claims and awards for application 4501887 — net $10,569.11 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 22 February 2023

Amount: $3,137.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 22 February 2023

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $301.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $402.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $252.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replacing blinds in the living area

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacing blinds in the living area

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Holly Parlane must pay Damerell Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Corner $10,569.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (3457088-008) to Damerell Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Corner immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 22 February 2023$3,137.14 Carpet Cleaning$301.88 Cleaning$402.50 Lock/key replacement$252.55 Replacing blinds in the living area$552.00 Fixing damaged floor board$644.00 Replacing bathroom and master bedroom doors$672.75 Repainting$7,220.85 Rubbish removal$85.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$13,289.11 Bond$2,720.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,569.11

Reasons

Mr Haabjoern appeared as the landlord’s agent.
The tenant, Ms Parlane did not appear.
As Ms Parlane did not seem interested in the present application, I proceeded with the proceedings in her absence.
The tenancy commenced on 21 May 2021 and the tenant vacated the premises on 22 February 2023. The weekly rent was $680.
Mr. Haabjoern presented the case to me in a well-prepared manner and made persuasive arguments.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 February 2023, and Mr Haabjoern provided rent records that proved the amount owed at the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing, Mr Haabjoern informed me that a previous Tribunal Order 4331835, dated 29 March 2022, recorded that Ms Parlane owed rent to 29 March 2022 for a total of $1,942.85.
Mr Haabjoern also said that Ms Parlane paid $720 per week, which was $40 more than her agreed rent of $680, to cover her rent arrears under Tribunal Order 4331835.
However, Ms Parlane had not paid off her previous rent arrears before accruing further rent arrears. Therefore, I suggested that it might be easier to record the total rent arrears up to the date Ms Parlane vacated the premises rather than identifying how much rent arrears were paid under the previous Tribunal Order 4331835. I considered this the most pragmatic way of approaching the issue of rent arrears. Mr Haabjoern agreed with this approach.
I reviewed the rent summary and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the total rent arrears owed by Ms Parlane were $3,137.14.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
In mid-April 2023, Ms Parlane couriered a set of keys to Mr Haabjoern which was more than 2 months after she had vacated the premises.
Ms Parlane did not return the keys immediately to Mr Haabjoern upon vacating the premises, and as a result, the landlord had to replace the keys.
Mr Haabjoern took me through the evidence in the hearing. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Parlane did not leave the premises reasonably celan and tidy, she did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys in a timely manner.
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: a. Replacing blinds in the living area; b. Fixing damaged floorboard; c. Replacing bathroom door; d. Replace master bedroom door; and e. Repainting. Replacing blinds in the living area
Mr Haabjoern’s evidence is that there is a badly stained blind in the living room that needs to be replaced. The blinds in the living room were new when Ms Parlane moved in. The landlord replaced the damaged blinds with a cheaper and simpler system. The damaged blinds are hexagon-shaped and badly stained. They are also destroyed on the edges, possibly due to little hands pulling or crushing them. The stain seems to be from a spilled drink that has blown across the blinds and onto the interior of the blinds.
Mr Haabjoern submitted that “the cost of this type of blind was over $1,000, but the landlord replaced it with a simple white roller blind that cost around $500. The landlord did not want to install expensive blinds again in the property.”
Mr Haabjoern sought $552 for the replacement of cheaper blinds in the living area.
I accept Mr Haabjoern’s submissions that the quality of the damaged blinds was far better than the present. There was no “improvement” to the blinds other than the blinds were new. Mr Haabjoern said in his evidence “... we've got the roller blinds, you can no longer they're either closed all the way or open all the way. You don't get that natural light, you don't get the privacy, and they don't look nearly as nice.”
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it is appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the entire invoice for $552.00. Fixing damaged floorboard
Mr Haabjoern said in the hearing “God knows how that happened, because that's a floorboard and it's had something come down on it so hard that it's dropped at about a centimetre”.
Mr Haabjoern referred me to photos which clearly showed a dropped floorboard, about a centimetre. It is unclear what caused the drop, however, it is evident that extreme force was applied to the floorboard.
Mr Haabjoern said in evidence that “the floorboard, that's old oak floorboarding, we've just got the standard bit of recycled timber. It doesn't match in colour, it's not the same. The current floor is shiny and this one's more dull. We could have gone to a lot more effort to try and replace it, like for like at a much higher cost.” The landlord did not do so.
Mr Haabjoern argued that there was no improvement. As I have indicated earlier, I accept Mr Haabjoern’s submissions on this point.
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it is appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the entire invoice for $644.00. Replacing bathroom door and master bedroom door
Mr Haabjoern referred me to photos which clearly showed the damage to the doors. The force used to cause the damage was significant and intentional.
It is not clear who did the damage to the doors. However, the person must had Ms Parlane’s permission to enter the premises. This being the case, Ms Parlane is responsible for the damage to the doors.
Mr Haabjoern submitted the same point as he did earlier. I record I accepted his submissions and that no further deduction for depreciation and improvement is appropriate.
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it is appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the entire invoice for $672.75. Repainting
Mr Haabjoern told me in the hearing that the house was repainted in 2020. The previous tenant before Ms Parlane was a professional who looked after the property.
Mr Haabjoern said in evidence that during the routine inspection, he found “every room had damaged the paintwork”. Mr Haabjoern “... found that the tenant had repainted parts of the hallway and kitchen with different paints. The tenant advised it had been done by a professional painter who colour matched paint, although she never provided any evidence this was done by a professional painter.”
Mr Haabjoern then suggested Ms Parlane get the painter back because the job was not up to the standard and the paint was a different colour.
Ms Parlane did not reengage with her painter. Mr Haabjoern did not appear surprised that Ms Parlane had caused more damage to the walls that it was probably more cost effective if Ms Parlane did not try to repaint either by herself or by a not-qualified painter.
Mr Haabjoern said “... ultimately she was trying to do the right thing by covering up the marks and the damage that she'd made. But when it's the wrong colour and it's throughout the whole house, we didn't really have any other choice. We just had to paint the whole thing.”
While Mr Haabjoern argued the same point, I was not persuaded that the landlord did not “improve” the property when he repainted the entire house. I told Mr Haabjoern that I did not consider 20% as a reasonable deduction for depreciation and improvement to the property.
I viewed the evidence and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider it appropriate to order Mr Parlane to pay the 70% of the invoice or $7,220.85.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Filing Fee
Because Damerell Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Corner has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501887 — Rent arrears at 323A Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501887 — Rent arrears at 323A Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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