What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4571823?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4571823?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $18.74 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $405.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4571823?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4571823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9450748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4571823?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4571823?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $18.74 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $405.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4571823?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4571823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9450748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

72 Craigs Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4571823 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4571823 — net $807.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$18.74	Rent arrears
Water rates	$405.70	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$143.75	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$218.50	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$807.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$807.13

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4571823 — net $807.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$18.74	Rent arrears
Water rates	$405.70	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$143.75	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$218.50	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$807.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$807.13

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Hasi Nabawi, Duncan Brandon Kläckers, Kiani Matakatea, Denis Antsupov and Kane King to pay Haven Living Management Ltd Acting Agent For Tony Hall $807.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6216434-006) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Mr Kerr appeared as the agent for the landlord.
There were five tenants in the tenancy agreement. Mr Hasi Nabawi and Ms Matakatea appeared. Mr King, Mr Antsupov and Mr Kläckers did not appear.
Mr Nabawi was the person addressing me. Ms Matakatea did not address me at all. Mr Nabawi’s support person, Mr Duais, also made submissions.
In the course of the hearing, Mr. Nabawi expressed his view that the landlord might have committed insurance fraud. I advised him to report his complaint to the police instead of the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is the applicant in this case. The landlord must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Mr Nabawi agreed to pay $18.74 in rent arrears and $405.70 in water rates owed. As there were no disputes, the landlord's application under this heading was granted.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord submitted an invoice for $287.50 to cover the weeding of the garden areas at the front and the removal of weeds from the stone areas at the front and back. They also removed all the rubbish on site, except for the wood pile on the deck.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy report dated 26 February 2021, along with two routine inspection reports dated 22 September 2022 and 28 January 2023, and a post-tenancy inspection report dated 28 February 2023.
Despite seeing the inspection reports, Mr. Nabawi did not accept that the property was not reasonably clean and tidy upon his departure.
I acknowledge Mr. Nabawi made an effort to clean the property, he also hired an older lady from Facebook Marketplace to clean the property manually without the use of any commercial cleaning equipment. However, hiring someone to clean the property does not guarantee that it was cleaned to a reasonably satisfactory standard.
My view is that the tenants did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and there was still rubbish left behind.
It is not reasonable to pay the landlord the full amount claimed. Instead, reimbursing 50% of the $287.50 paid, which is $143.75, is a reasonable amount.

Are the tenants 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.
There are 3 alleged damages: a. Stains on the carpet and several scuff marks on the walls b. Blind repair: and c. Garden work. Stains on the carpet
The landlord has claimed four insurance excesses for the replacement of the carpet due to damages allegedly caused by tenants.
According to the evidence before me, the insurance excess for each bedroom is $1,100. However, it is unclear what caused the damage exactly. I have not found any loss assessor report from the insurance company in the file, which leads me to conclude that the damage to the carpet was not formally assessed. Additionally, no expert has considered the type of remedial work that was available.
The landlord has alleged the tenants of causing several carpet stains throughout the property. When asked why the landlord did not hire a commercial carpet cleaner to clean the carpet, Mr. Kerr said: ”The cleaner attended to them, they still remained. So the owner, Tony Hall, and I and Hasi were also there on the Friday and said, if she can't get them out, then there's no luck in getting them. It's not going to work. As he's tried several times, he said, with several products. So we'd better go down the route of insurance.”
During the hearing, Mr. Nawabi disputed responsibility for the stains on the carpet. He claimed that the stains were pre-existing before he moved into the house. As I reviewed the inspection reports with both parties, I noticed several stains in the bedrooms. While some of the stains were not easily visible, others were. However, there were no large stains that covered most of the carpet in any of the bedrooms.
Although Mr. Nawabi denied that the tenants caused the damage, Mr. Kerr told me “... that what the next best step is, to get someone, instead of getting another cleaner out to deal with it, to just go for insurance ....”
I then told Mr Kerr that “I just find that a little bit excessive for four insurance excesses when there is still a possibility to clean the carpet [by a commercial carpet cleaner] to a point where it might be acceptable.”
My comment to Mr Kerr was to emphasise the landlord's obligation to mitigate his losses under section 49 RTA. Based on the available evidence, it seems that the landlord did not make any effort to mitigate the losses. Instead, the landlord replaced the carpet in the property using insurance claims, without hiring a commercial carpet cleaner or a carpet repairer. The landlord’s decision to replace the carpet without identifying the losses did not sit well with me.
Even if the tenants were responsible for the carpet stains, the burden of proving losses remained with the landlord to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities.
Here, the carpet in the house was replaced. The property was sold in April 2023. The landlord did not provide me with evidence to prove that he had tried to mitigate the loss and the cost of mitigation.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his losses. Therefore, his claim for insurance excesses x4 is dismissed. Blind repair
The landlord alleged that the tenants had damaged a blind and that the damage was not due to fair wear and tear. The cost of repair was estimated to be $200. Mr. Nawabi, however, denied responsibility and claimed that the damage was caused by the landlord's construction workers who had gone onto the property on Saturday, 25 February 2023.
There was a dispute about when the construction workers went to the property and commenced the work.
The landlord had given Mr. Nawabi two extra days to vacate the premises, extending his rental until Sunday, 26 February 2023. The final inspection was conducted on Tuesday, 28 February 2023.
Mr Kerr said the construction did not commence until 28 February 2023.
Mr. Nawabi argued that the damage to the blind was not caused by him but by the construction workers who had been on the property since 25 February 2023.
It would make sense for any landlord to want construction work to start as soon as the tenancy comes to an end on 25 February 2023, and the best date for this is 25 February 2023.
Therefore, I have found it to be a fact that the landlord's construction workers went to the property and entered the house on 25 and 26 February 2023. Since the final inspection report was conducted on 28 February 2023, I cannot rule out that the construction worker might have caused the damage to the blind.
As a result, the landlord has failed to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Nawabi is responsible for the damage to the blind during the tenancy.
Accordingly, the landlord's claim for blind repair is dismissed. Several scuff marks on the walls throughout the property
Mr Nawabi denied the tenants were responsible for the scuff marks on the walls. Mr Nawabi ran similar arguments as the blind repair in that the construction workers went onsite and entered the house on 25 February 2023. The final inspection took place on 28 February 2023.
I consider there is merit in Mr Nawabi’s arguments. Because it is the landlord who has the burden of satisfying me on the balance of probabilities and has failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for cleaning several scuff marks on the walls throughout the property is dismissed. Garden was damaged because the tenants parked their car on either side
The landlord alleged the tenants damaged the garden because they parked their cars on either side.
Mr Nawabi did not deny one of the tenants parked his cars on the garden area but denied the car damaged the garden area. Mr Nawabi submitted that: a. The property was flooded in January 2023. Water would wash the black bark chips away. b. The landlord never said the tenants could not park the car on the garden area.
There is some force in Mr Nawabi’s submissions that the flood water might have washed the black chips away. The photos I have seen did not show the garden “ground” was damaged. The damage (if one can say it was damage) was that black bark chips were spread outside the garden area.
The final inspection was done on 28 February 2023, not long after two major floods took place in Auckland. Mr Nawabi played a 5-second video to show me the water level on the ground was high. In my view, the more water on the ground the more likely the water would take the black bark chips with it.
Based on the balance of probabilities, the landlord has not persuaded me that the damage to the garden area was not caused by the flood in January and February 2023.
I told Mr Nawabi that it would be common sense that the garden is not a designated parking space for the tenants. I did not accept Mr Nawabi’s argument that the garden is not a garden because the area was landscaped with weed mat and bark.
The landlord’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Trimming of flax bushes, removal of dead flowers, lawn mowing and edge trimming
I reviewed the pre-entry inspection report, routine inspection reports and final inspection reports, and I came to the conclusion that the garden is not well maintained.
Mr Nawabi argued that the photos in the inspection reports did not show the pre-tenancy garden condition. I disagree.
The garden and plants appeared to be reasonably maintained.
Mr Kerr submitted an invoice with a cost of $437 ($380 plus GST). The cost includes repair of the garden area allegedly damaged by the tenants’ car which was dismissed.
Accordingly, 50% of the $437 or $218.50 is reasonable reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the garden. Filing fee
Because Haven Living Management Ltd Acting Agent For Tony Hall has partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4571823 — Rent arrears at 72 Craigs Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4571823 — Rent arrears at 72 Craigs Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions