What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4590049?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4590049?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $488.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4590049?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4590049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9416827-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4590049?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4590049?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $488.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4590049?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4590049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9416827-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5A Pohutukawa Drive, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4590049 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4590049. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning costs	$500.25	Cleaning costs
Commercial carpet cleaning	$210.00	Commercial carpet cleaning
Lock replacement	$253.00	Lock replacement
Replacement heat pump remote	$95.36	Replacement heat pump remote
Curtain replacement	$400.00	Curtain replacement
Oven replacement	$488.15	Oven replacement
Hole repair	$450.00	Hole repair
Door damage repair	$190.00	Door damage repair
Wardrobe door handle replacement	$100.00	Wardrobe door handle replacement
Door veneer replacement	$135.00	Door veneer replacement
Kitchen cabinet replacement	$300.00	Kitchen cabinet replacement

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Brena Tewhaiti-Temata is to pay Realty Waikato Limited $2,321.76 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning costs$500.25 Commercial carpet cleaning$210.00 Lock replacement$253.00 Replacement heat pump remote$95.36 Curtain replacement$400.00 Oven replacement$488.15 Hole repair$450.00 Door damage repair$190.00 Wardrobe door handle replacement$100.00 Door veneer replacement$135.00 Kitchen cabinet replacement$300.00 Total award$3,121.76 Minus Bond$2,321.76
Bond Services is to pay the Bond to Realty Waikato Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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.
A significant amount of rubbish was left behind as shown in the Landlord’s photographs. There was approximately 5-6m 3 of rubbish. The contractor whom the Landlord hired to remove and dump the rubbish was said have filled a high- side trailer full of the tenant’s rubbish and left-behind belongings. I award $575.00 to the Landlord, the invoiced cost of the contractor.
The Landlord says the tenants did not clean the premises before leaving. The areas required an intensive clean: kitchen, dining, laundry, bathroom, toilet, walls, doors, trims and ceilings. The object of the clean was to restore these areas to a clean and tidy state. I award the invoiced cost of the cleaner: $500.25.
I award the cost of carpet cleaning, given the carpets were stained and spoiled by dirt and other organic material, requiring commercial cleaning: $210.00
The tenant did not return the keys. I award the Landlord the cost of replacing two locks: $253.00.
The Tenant accepts losing or misplacing the heat pump remote. I approve $95.36 for its replacement.
Net curtains changed throughout the tenancy because they were either not there or damaged. The cost of their replacement was $603.75, and I award $400.00 considering their age and condition at the start, and at the end, of the tenancy.

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:
Oven: The oven was damaged, did not function properly, and showed signs of blunt force impact. The Tenant accepted the damage occurred during the tenancy according to the property manager. The cost of replacement of the oven was $1,705.45. The Landlord seeks a portion of the cost of replacement, accounting for the $488.15, which I approve.
Holes: The Landlord’s photographs establish no holes in front bedroom and back bedroom walls, prior to tenancy, though two holes are apparent at the end of the tenancy, one in each bedroom.
The Landlord hired a contractor who supplied and fitted gib backing board and inserts into hole, plastering, and sanding these areas twice. The cost of the repairs came to $450.00. I approve this claim.
Door damage: The Landlord claims the Tenant has accepted liability for damaging the front entrance door frame. The Tenant tried to fix the door herself and screwed lots of different locking mechanisms to it, damaging the door frame. The cost of repairing the door and door frame was: $190.00.
Wardrobe door handle: The door handle was removed during the tenancy and required replacement, at a cost of $195.00. The same contractor completed this task. I approve $100.00. $195.00 for a door handle is quite extraordinary.
Door Veneer: The door veneer panel was separated from the door during the tenancy, and the Tenant also accepted responsibility for this. The repair costed $135.00.
Kitchen Cupboard Unit: During a routine inspection, the Landlord found a leak above a kitchen cupboard. The surrounding area and the cupboard were damp, but there wasn't any sagging or mold. The leak was fixed within a week.
The Tenant reportedly knew about the leak but did not report it. Instead, she attempted to fix it herself. Between her repair attempt and the inspection, the leak persisted. As a result, mould developed, the cupboard sagged, and more damage ensued, necessitating removal and replacement of the entire cupboard unit. Although the Tenant was aware of the leak’s progression and the cupboard’s deteriorating condition, she didn’t inform the Landlord.
The Landlord is now demanding the full cost for cupboard replacement. It is alleged that the Tenant’s attempt to fix the leak worsened the situation. However, I lack conclusive evidence from a certified tradesperson confirming the Tenant as the main contributor to the leak and subsequent cupboard damage.
While leaks are maintenance concerns, Tenants should inform Landlords about them, especially when they are aware of their existence. The Landlord mentioned that the Tenant described the leak as "slow." This might have led her to believe that she could manage it on her own. While it's uncertain why she did not alert the Landlord immediately, it's not uncommon for tenants to address such issues independently.
Based on the available evidence, I cannot decisively state that the Tenant was primarily responsible for the damage. Multiple factors, including the Landlord's maintenance responsibilities, seem to have contributed. It is noteworthy that the initial repair by the tradesman was not successful, as the leak re-emerged from a different spot. I find it unlikely that the Tenant intentionally caused another leak.
Against that background, considering the Landlord’s evidence and the age and condition of the cabinet at the start of the tenancy, I award $300.00 as the Tenant’s contribution to the cabinet replacement.
The damage in all cases is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4590049. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning costs	$500.25	Cleaning costs
Commercial carpet cleaning	$210.00	Commercial carpet cleaning
Lock replacement	$253.00	Lock replacement
Replacement heat pump remote	$95.36	Replacement heat pump remote
Curtain replacement	$400.00	Curtain replacement
Oven replacement	$488.15	Oven replacement
Hole repair	$450.00	Hole repair
Door damage repair	$190.00	Door damage repair
Wardrobe door handle replacement	$100.00	Wardrobe door handle replacement
Door veneer replacement	$135.00	Door veneer replacement
Kitchen cabinet replacement	$300.00	Kitchen cabinet replacement

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Brena Tewhaiti-Temata is to pay Realty Waikato Limited $2,321.76 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning costs$500.25 Commercial carpet cleaning$210.00 Lock replacement$253.00 Replacement heat pump remote$95.36 Curtain replacement$400.00 Oven replacement$488.15 Hole repair$450.00 Door damage repair$190.00 Wardrobe door handle replacement$100.00 Door veneer replacement$135.00 Kitchen cabinet replacement$300.00 Total award$3,121.76 Minus Bond$2,321.76
Bond Services is to pay the Bond to Realty Waikato Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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.
A significant amount of rubbish was left behind as shown in the Landlord’s photographs. There was approximately 5-6m 3 of rubbish. The contractor whom the Landlord hired to remove and dump the rubbish was said have filled a high- side trailer full of the tenant’s rubbish and left-behind belongings. I award $575.00 to the Landlord, the invoiced cost of the contractor.
The Landlord says the tenants did not clean the premises before leaving. The areas required an intensive clean: kitchen, dining, laundry, bathroom, toilet, walls, doors, trims and ceilings. The object of the clean was to restore these areas to a clean and tidy state. I award the invoiced cost of the cleaner: $500.25.
I award the cost of carpet cleaning, given the carpets were stained and spoiled by dirt and other organic material, requiring commercial cleaning: $210.00
The tenant did not return the keys. I award the Landlord the cost of replacing two locks: $253.00.
The Tenant accepts losing or misplacing the heat pump remote. I approve $95.36 for its replacement.
Net curtains changed throughout the tenancy because they were either not there or damaged. The cost of their replacement was $603.75, and I award $400.00 considering their age and condition at the start, and at the end, of the tenancy.

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:
Oven: The oven was damaged, did not function properly, and showed signs of blunt force impact. The Tenant accepted the damage occurred during the tenancy according to the property manager. The cost of replacement of the oven was $1,705.45. The Landlord seeks a portion of the cost of replacement, accounting for the $488.15, which I approve.
Holes: The Landlord’s photographs establish no holes in front bedroom and back bedroom walls, prior to tenancy, though two holes are apparent at the end of the tenancy, one in each bedroom.
The Landlord hired a contractor who supplied and fitted gib backing board and inserts into hole, plastering, and sanding these areas twice. The cost of the repairs came to $450.00. I approve this claim.
Door damage: The Landlord claims the Tenant has accepted liability for damaging the front entrance door frame. The Tenant tried to fix the door herself and screwed lots of different locking mechanisms to it, damaging the door frame. The cost of repairing the door and door frame was: $190.00.
Wardrobe door handle: The door handle was removed during the tenancy and required replacement, at a cost of $195.00. The same contractor completed this task. I approve $100.00. $195.00 for a door handle is quite extraordinary.
Door Veneer: The door veneer panel was separated from the door during the tenancy, and the Tenant also accepted responsibility for this. The repair costed $135.00.
Kitchen Cupboard Unit: During a routine inspection, the Landlord found a leak above a kitchen cupboard. The surrounding area and the cupboard were damp, but there wasn't any sagging or mold. The leak was fixed within a week.
The Tenant reportedly knew about the leak but did not report it. Instead, she attempted to fix it herself. Between her repair attempt and the inspection, the leak persisted. As a result, mould developed, the cupboard sagged, and more damage ensued, necessitating removal and replacement of the entire cupboard unit. Although the Tenant was aware of the leak’s progression and the cupboard’s deteriorating condition, she didn’t inform the Landlord.
The Landlord is now demanding the full cost for cupboard replacement. It is alleged that the Tenant’s attempt to fix the leak worsened the situation. However, I lack conclusive evidence from a certified tradesperson confirming the Tenant as the main contributor to the leak and subsequent cupboard damage.
While leaks are maintenance concerns, Tenants should inform Landlords about them, especially when they are aware of their existence. The Landlord mentioned that the Tenant described the leak as "slow." This might have led her to believe that she could manage it on her own. While it's uncertain why she did not alert the Landlord immediately, it's not uncommon for tenants to address such issues independently.
Based on the available evidence, I cannot decisively state that the Tenant was primarily responsible for the damage. Multiple factors, including the Landlord's maintenance responsibilities, seem to have contributed. It is noteworthy that the initial repair by the tradesman was not successful, as the leak re-emerged from a different spot. I find it unlikely that the Tenant intentionally caused another leak.
Against that background, considering the Landlord’s evidence and the age and condition of the cabinet at the start of the tenancy, I award $300.00 as the Tenant’s contribution to the cabinet replacement.
The damage in all cases is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4590049 — Property damage at 5A Pohutukawa Drive, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4590049 — Property damage at 5A Pohutukawa Drive, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions