What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4778466?

The tribunal order states: Tahlia Popata and Jennifer Kolitau must pay Pro Edge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4778466?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,492.13 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,736.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,345.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $229.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778466?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10415848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4778466?

The tribunal order states: Tahlia Popata and Jennifer Kolitau must pay Pro Edge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4778466?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,492.13 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,736.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,345.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $229.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778466?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10415848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 4, 52 Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778466 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Flat 4, 52 Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778466 — 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 4778466 — net $4,925.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 December 2023	$2,736.00	Rent arrears to 20 December 2023
Water rates	$229.63	Water rates
Cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,345.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$380.00	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$368.00	Pest control
Lawn mowing	$138.00	Lawn mowing
Replace smoke alarms	$92.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs	$1,492.13	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,925.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,925.70

Claims and awards for application 4778466 — net $4,925.70 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20 December 2023

Amount: $2,736.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20 December 2023

Water rates

Amount: $229.63
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $644.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,345.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms Water Rates

Order

Tahlia Popata and Jennifer Kolitau must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent For Harish Mahankali $4,925.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (5951498-002) to Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent for Harish Mahankali immediately.

Reasons

Nikita Sahni attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenants did not attend. The Tribunal gave the tenants notice of the hearing. The tenants have not communicated with the Tribunal to explain why they would not be attending. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy ended on 20 December 2023. The landlord applies for rent and water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment over of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Ms Sahni provided a rent summary and water rates invoices which proved the amounts the tenants owe for outstanding rent and water.

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

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not leave the lawns reasonably tidy, did not control pests, and did not remove all their rubbish.
The landlord claimed $580.00 for carpet cleaning. The carpet cleaning was carried out by and employee of Scope Works NZ Limited. Scope Works operates as an inhouse maintenance services arm of the landlord’s agent, Pro Edge Property Management Limited.
There is a question of independence between the two companies and therefore a lingering question as to the fiscal rigour of costs claim. It was not satisfactorily explained why the tenant should have to reimburse the landlord’s agent’s associated company for a salaried employee doing two carpet cleans. That claim is reduced to $380.00 in line with expected market rates for carpet cleaning.
Two newly installed smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e).

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for damage and property loss for the following: a split bedroom door frame; a missing bathroom vanity drawer; a damaged towel rail; wall damage; damage to the garage door; and a broken kitchen tap.
To succeed in a damage claim, landlords must prove any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, tenants 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. 2
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. 3 None of the damage in this case was covered beyond the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing intentional damage that is or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to the tenant does and their guests. 4
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. 5
I am satisfied that the damage and property loss occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The amount sought for the door frame damage is allowed in full. The replacement vanity cost is allowed at 50 per cent of the actual cost to account for depreciation and betterment. The towel rail replacement is allowed at 20 per cent to account for depreciation and betterment. The costs of repairing the wall damage, garage door damage, and kitchen tap damage are allowed in full. Filing fee
The Tribunal must order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord substantially succeeded in its claim. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 3 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 4 RTA, s 49B(1). 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Addendum – lack of invoices
Ms Sahni submitted a single invoice for all the costs claimed other than rent and water arrears.
The invoice was Pro Edge’s own tax invoice which collating other invoices and work done by its own employees. Ms Sahni did not submit the original invoices from other contractors or companies or any documents to justify the cost of the work done by its inhouse services provider, Scope Works NZ.
However, Ms Sahni was familiar with the tenancy, the problems that needed remediation, and who did the work. She satisfactorily explained most of the costs set out in the overarching invoice.
In future claims by Pro Edge in the Tribunal, the Tribunal would be assisted by Pro Edge providing all original invoices behind its own collating invoice and justifying the cost of work done by its inhouse services provider, Scope Works NZ.

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 4778466 — net $4,925.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 December 2023	$2,736.00	Rent arrears to 20 December 2023
Water rates	$229.63	Water rates
Cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,345.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$380.00	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$368.00	Pest control
Lawn mowing	$138.00	Lawn mowing
Replace smoke alarms	$92.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs	$1,492.13	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,925.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,925.70

Claims and awards for application 4778466 — net $4,925.70 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20 December 2023

Amount: $2,736.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20 December 2023

Water rates

Amount: $229.63
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $644.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,345.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Pest Control Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms Water Rates

Order

Tahlia Popata and Jennifer Kolitau must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent For Harish Mahankali $4,925.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (5951498-002) to Pro Edge Property Management Limited as agent for Harish Mahankali immediately.

Reasons

Nikita Sahni attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenants did not attend. The Tribunal gave the tenants notice of the hearing. The tenants have not communicated with the Tribunal to explain why they would not be attending. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy ended on 20 December 2023. The landlord applies for rent and water arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment over of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Ms Sahni provided a rent summary and water rates invoices which proved the amounts the tenants owe for outstanding rent and water.

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

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not leave the lawns reasonably tidy, did not control pests, and did not remove all their rubbish.
The landlord claimed $580.00 for carpet cleaning. The carpet cleaning was carried out by and employee of Scope Works NZ Limited. Scope Works operates as an inhouse maintenance services arm of the landlord’s agent, Pro Edge Property Management Limited.
There is a question of independence between the two companies and therefore a lingering question as to the fiscal rigour of costs claim. It was not satisfactorily explained why the tenant should have to reimburse the landlord’s agent’s associated company for a salaried employee doing two carpet cleans. That claim is reduced to $380.00 in line with expected market rates for carpet cleaning.
Two newly installed smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e).

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for damage and property loss for the following: a split bedroom door frame; a missing bathroom vanity drawer; a damaged towel rail; wall damage; damage to the garage door; and a broken kitchen tap.
To succeed in a damage claim, landlords must prove any damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, tenants 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. 2
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. 3 None of the damage in this case was covered beyond the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing intentional damage that is or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to the tenant does and their guests. 4
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. 5
I am satisfied that the damage and property loss occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The amount sought for the door frame damage is allowed in full. The replacement vanity cost is allowed at 50 per cent of the actual cost to account for depreciation and betterment. The towel rail replacement is allowed at 20 per cent to account for depreciation and betterment. The costs of repairing the wall damage, garage door damage, and kitchen tap damage are allowed in full. Filing fee
The Tribunal must order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord substantially succeeded in its claim. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 3 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 4 RTA, s 49B(1). 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Addendum – lack of invoices
Ms Sahni submitted a single invoice for all the costs claimed other than rent and water arrears.
The invoice was Pro Edge’s own tax invoice which collating other invoices and work done by its own employees. Ms Sahni did not submit the original invoices from other contractors or companies or any documents to justify the cost of the work done by its inhouse services provider, Scope Works NZ.
However, Ms Sahni was familiar with the tenancy, the problems that needed remediation, and who did the work. She satisfactorily explained most of the costs set out in the overarching invoice.
In future claims by Pro Edge in the Tribunal, the Tribunal would be assisted by Pro Edge providing all original invoices behind its own collating invoice and justifying the cost of work done by its inhouse services provider, Scope Works NZ.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778466 — Rent arrears at Flat 4, 52 Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778466 — Rent arrears at Flat 4, 52 Great South Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

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?

Are the tenants liable 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?

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions