What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4772318?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (6401492-007) to Karloo

How much money was awarded in case 4772318?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,772.14 awarded to landlord; Painting: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $213.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772318?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10456689-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4772318?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (6401492-007) to Karloo

How much money was awarded in case 4772318?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,772.14 awarded to landlord; Painting: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $213.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4772318?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4772318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10456689-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4772318 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

54 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4772318 — 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 4772318 — net $4,081.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2024	$4,772.14	Rent arrears to 31 January 2024
Water rates	$213.51	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$236.90	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Painting	$379.50	Repairs: Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$299.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$600.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,081.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,081.49

Claims and awards for application 4772318 — net $4,081.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 31 January 2024

Amount: $4,772.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 31 January 2024

Water rates

Amount: $213.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $236.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $379.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $299.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (6401492-007) to Karloo Property Management As Agent For D Patel & S Patel & Others immediately.
Lili Pulupuna and Tevita Pulupuna must pay Karloo Property Management As Agent For D Patel & S Patel & Others $4,081.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,772.14 for rent and $213.51 for water rates.

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 landlord claims that the tenant left the property uncleaned. She claims the kitchen, dishwasher, oven, bathrooms, lampshades, curtains and other areas hadn’t been cleaned at all. The landlord produced photographs, a letter and an invoice in support of the claim. The invoice is dated “8/1/24”, which predates the end of the tenancy. In response to this the landlord stated the date is an error, and should read “8/2/24”.
The tenant disputed that the property was left uncleaned and provided a letter (on her mobile phone) from a person who claimed to have cleaned the property. The tenant stated that the landlord declined to meet her at the property at the end of the tenancy to do an end-of-tenancy inspection.
Neither the invoice nor the letter from the landlord’s cleaner have any contact details nor a GST number for the cleaner. An internet search under “Katies Cleaning” and “Amazing k8 cleaner” do not provide any information establishing a cleaning service in the Auckland area. It is therefore not possible to confirm with the cleaner the services rendered.
Given the information provided by the tenant, the landlord’s information does not go far enough to prove on the balance of probabilities the cost of cleaning the property.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims the tenant did not return all the keys for the property. The tenant accepts this. The landlord claims for the cost of re-keying and locking four locks at the property and has produced an invoice for $236.90.
The amount is proved.
The landlord produced photographs of a driveway and path which had some marks on it where lineal areas of mould had been removed with a water blaster. The landlord claims $402.50 for water blasting the driveway and path.
The photographs show the driveway and path to be reasonably clean. This is the standard that is required of a tenant at the end of a tenancy.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims $1,248.65 for tidying the garden and disposing of rubbish. She produced photographs showing the garden and the rubbish the tenant left behind, and an invoice the above amount. The photographs do not show a garden in need of a significant amount of maintenance (not sufficient to justify $660.00 labour as claimed), and in my view the claim is not made out in full. The claim is partially proved. A reduced amount of $600.00 is ordered.
The landlord produced photographs showing dirty carpets and an invoice for $299.00 for carpet cleaning. The tenant disputed that the carpets were left in the state depicted by the photos, but she did not produce any photographs or other documentary information of her own.
On the balance of probabilities the claim is 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.
The landlord produced photographs of several holes in walls and door at the property, some of which had been patched, and an invoice for $379.50 for repairs.
The tenant accepted some of the damage and said some of the damage was there at the beginning of the tenancy. She did not produce any supporting evidence for this. The landlord disputed the tenant’s claim on this point.
The damage goes beyond fair wear and tear, on the balance of probabilities I find that it all occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability.
This claim is 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.
Because Karloo Property Management As Agent For D Patel & S Patel & Others has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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 4772318 — net $4,081.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2024	$4,772.14	Rent arrears to 31 January 2024
Water rates	$213.51	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$236.90	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Painting	$379.50	Repairs: Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$299.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$600.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,081.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,081.49

Claims and awards for application 4772318 — net $4,081.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 31 January 2024

Amount: $4,772.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 31 January 2024

Water rates

Amount: $213.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $236.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $379.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $299.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (6401492-007) to Karloo Property Management As Agent For D Patel & S Patel & Others immediately.
Lili Pulupuna and Tevita Pulupuna must pay Karloo Property Management As Agent For D Patel & S Patel & Others $4,081.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,772.14 for rent and $213.51 for water rates.

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 landlord claims that the tenant left the property uncleaned. She claims the kitchen, dishwasher, oven, bathrooms, lampshades, curtains and other areas hadn’t been cleaned at all. The landlord produced photographs, a letter and an invoice in support of the claim. The invoice is dated “8/1/24”, which predates the end of the tenancy. In response to this the landlord stated the date is an error, and should read “8/2/24”.
The tenant disputed that the property was left uncleaned and provided a letter (on her mobile phone) from a person who claimed to have cleaned the property. The tenant stated that the landlord declined to meet her at the property at the end of the tenancy to do an end-of-tenancy inspection.
Neither the invoice nor the letter from the landlord’s cleaner have any contact details nor a GST number for the cleaner. An internet search under “Katies Cleaning” and “Amazing k8 cleaner” do not provide any information establishing a cleaning service in the Auckland area. It is therefore not possible to confirm with the cleaner the services rendered.
Given the information provided by the tenant, the landlord’s information does not go far enough to prove on the balance of probabilities the cost of cleaning the property.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims the tenant did not return all the keys for the property. The tenant accepts this. The landlord claims for the cost of re-keying and locking four locks at the property and has produced an invoice for $236.90.
The amount is proved.
The landlord produced photographs of a driveway and path which had some marks on it where lineal areas of mould had been removed with a water blaster. The landlord claims $402.50 for water blasting the driveway and path.
The photographs show the driveway and path to be reasonably clean. This is the standard that is required of a tenant at the end of a tenancy.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims $1,248.65 for tidying the garden and disposing of rubbish. She produced photographs showing the garden and the rubbish the tenant left behind, and an invoice the above amount. The photographs do not show a garden in need of a significant amount of maintenance (not sufficient to justify $660.00 labour as claimed), and in my view the claim is not made out in full. The claim is partially proved. A reduced amount of $600.00 is ordered.
The landlord produced photographs showing dirty carpets and an invoice for $299.00 for carpet cleaning. The tenant disputed that the carpets were left in the state depicted by the photos, but she did not produce any photographs or other documentary information of her own.
On the balance of probabilities the claim is 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.
The landlord produced photographs of several holes in walls and door at the property, some of which had been patched, and an invoice for $379.50 for repairs.
The tenant accepted some of the damage and said some of the damage was there at the beginning of the tenancy. She did not produce any supporting evidence for this. The landlord disputed the tenant’s claim on this point.
The damage goes beyond fair wear and tear, on the balance of probabilities I find that it all occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability.
This claim is 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.
Because Karloo Property Management As Agent For D Patel & S Patel & Others has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4772318 — Rent arrears at 54 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4772318 — Rent arrears at 54 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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