What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4569129?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4569129?

Cleaning: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,070.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9255146-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4569129?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4569129?

Cleaning: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,070.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9255146-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48 Claude Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4569129 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

48 Claude Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4569129 — 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 4569129 — net $2,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,070.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$670.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$480.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet insurance excess	$400.00	Carpet insurance excess
Doors insurance excess	$400.00	Doors insurance excess
Windows insurance excess	$400.00	Windows insurance excess
Repairs: Paint and panel repairs insurance excess	$400.00	Repairs: Paint and panel repairs insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,320.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,320.44

Claims and awards for application 4569129 — net $2,320.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,070.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $670.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Carpet insurance excess

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet insurance excess

Doors insurance excess

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Doors insurance excess

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Jordan Leigh Little at 48 Claude Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Pro Edge Property Management Limited immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (3179965-007) to Pro Edge Property Management Limited immediately.
Jordan Leigh Little must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited $2,320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended this remote teleconference hearing on 26 July 2023.
Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am so satisfied.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
On 7 May 2023 the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
As the premises have been abandoned, and rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $2,070.00.This amount is calculated as follows. The rent was in credit on 7 May 2023 in the amount of $450.00. The amount of rent in lieu of notice (28 days) is $2,520.00.

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 landlord provided photos showing that the premises were abandoned in very poor condition. The photos show rubbish sacks, rubbish, soiled nappies and the like.
The landlord provided an invoice from a builder for the cleaning work. The builder records that he charges his time at $115.00 per hour. Whilst that is no doubt a reasonable rate for building work, it is not reasonable for cleaning. The tenant should only be liable for cleaning carried out at a commercial cleaners rate. Having reviewed the invoice, I consider a cleaning charge of $40.00 per hour to be reasonable . I have also reduced the cleaning products claimed. In total, I order the tenant to pay $520.00 for cleaning and $150.00 for cleaning products
The tenant did not return the keys. All the locks were damaged. The landlord has provided an invoice for lock repairs and key replacement of $480.00.
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. The landlord is insured and has an excess per claim of $400.00.
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: Carpet The carpet has been ruined .There are numerous stains. It is not in a condition where it could be cleaned and reused. The carpet has had to be lifted, disposed of and replaced. The invoice for that work is $6,405.00. The insurance excess is $400.00.The carpet was 5 years old. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Kitchen Insufficient evidence of this claim was provided at the hearing by the landlord. The claim was withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing and is dismissed. Exterior Doors The 3 doors were damaged beyond repair and were replaced at a cost of $3,240.00.The insurance excess is $400.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Window replacement Two large aluminium single glaze windows and 3 small aluminium single glaze windows were broken and had to be replaced at a cost of $7,780.00.The insurance excess is $400.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Plaster and paint Evidence was provided of extensive damage throughout the premises. The repair work invoice is for $2,660.00.The insurance excess is $400.00. 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. 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.
As Pro Edge Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.

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 4569129 — net $2,320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,070.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$670.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$480.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet insurance excess	$400.00	Carpet insurance excess
Doors insurance excess	$400.00	Doors insurance excess
Windows insurance excess	$400.00	Windows insurance excess
Repairs: Paint and panel repairs insurance excess	$400.00	Repairs: Paint and panel repairs insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,320.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,320.44

Claims and awards for application 4569129 — net $2,320.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,070.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $670.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Carpet insurance excess

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet insurance excess

Doors insurance excess

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Doors insurance excess

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Jordan Leigh Little at 48 Claude Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Pro Edge Property Management Limited immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (3179965-007) to Pro Edge Property Management Limited immediately.
Jordan Leigh Little must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited $2,320.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended this remote teleconference hearing on 26 July 2023.
Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am so satisfied.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
On 7 May 2023 the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
As the premises have been abandoned, and rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $2,070.00.This amount is calculated as follows. The rent was in credit on 7 May 2023 in the amount of $450.00. The amount of rent in lieu of notice (28 days) is $2,520.00.

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 landlord provided photos showing that the premises were abandoned in very poor condition. The photos show rubbish sacks, rubbish, soiled nappies and the like.
The landlord provided an invoice from a builder for the cleaning work. The builder records that he charges his time at $115.00 per hour. Whilst that is no doubt a reasonable rate for building work, it is not reasonable for cleaning. The tenant should only be liable for cleaning carried out at a commercial cleaners rate. Having reviewed the invoice, I consider a cleaning charge of $40.00 per hour to be reasonable . I have also reduced the cleaning products claimed. In total, I order the tenant to pay $520.00 for cleaning and $150.00 for cleaning products
The tenant did not return the keys. All the locks were damaged. The landlord has provided an invoice for lock repairs and key replacement of $480.00.
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. The landlord is insured and has an excess per claim of $400.00.
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: Carpet The carpet has been ruined .There are numerous stains. It is not in a condition where it could be cleaned and reused. The carpet has had to be lifted, disposed of and replaced. The invoice for that work is $6,405.00. The insurance excess is $400.00.The carpet was 5 years old. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Kitchen Insufficient evidence of this claim was provided at the hearing by the landlord. The claim was withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing and is dismissed. Exterior Doors The 3 doors were damaged beyond repair and were replaced at a cost of $3,240.00.The insurance excess is $400.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Window replacement Two large aluminium single glaze windows and 3 small aluminium single glaze windows were broken and had to be replaced at a cost of $7,780.00.The insurance excess is $400.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Plaster and paint Evidence was provided of extensive damage throughout the premises. The repair work invoice is for $2,660.00.The insurance excess is $400.00. 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. 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.
As Pro Edge Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569129 — Property damage at 48 Claude Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569129 — Property damage at 48 Claude Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

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