What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4836561?

The tribunal order states: James Whetu must pay Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For

How much money was awarded in case 4836561?

Cleaning: $1,923.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Gate: $447.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11012666-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4836561?

The tribunal order states: James Whetu must pay Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For

How much money was awarded in case 4836561?

Cleaning: $1,923.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Gate: $447.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11012666-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5A Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836561 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

5A Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836561 — Cleanliness | 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 4836561 — net $2,208.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: and replacement	$1,923.75	Carpet Cleaning: and replacement
Cleaning	$480.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Gate	$447.35	Repairs: Gate
Replace furnishings	$90.00	Replace furnishings
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00	Lawns and Garden work
Water rates	$68.25	Water rates
Exemplary damages; interfering with smoke alarms	$100.00	Exemplary damages; interfering with smoke alarms
Net award	$2,208.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,208.71

Claims and awards for application 4836561 — net $2,208.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning: and replacement

Amount: $1,923.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: and replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Gate

Amount: $447.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Gate

Replace furnishings

Amount: $90.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Water Rates

Order

James Whetu must pay Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For The Pranesh And Pranita Trust $2,208.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $940.64 (5293857-015) to Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For The Pranesh And Pranita Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy was terminated as of 28 April 2024 by Order of the Tenancy Tribunal on 23 April 2024. At today’s hearing, the landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $68.25. The tenant did not dispute this amount.

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. The tenant accepted a claim by the landlord for $480.00 for cleaning.
The tenant disputed a claim by the landlord for rubbish removal and garden tidy up. The landlord claimed $200.00 but did not provide an invoice and the information provided by the landlord did not set out what work was done, by whom, how long it took and at what cost. This claim is not proved.
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 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 tenant accepted a claim by the landlord of $447.35 for repairs to a gate for damage caused by the tenant’s dog.
The landlord claimed $1,184.00 for painting at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that walls had been graffiti-ed and damaged. The tenant disagreed with this information. The landlord did not provide photographs in support of her claim that showed the graffiti, nor invoices in support of the amounts claimed. In the absence of corroborating information, this claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $2,565.00 to clean and replace carpet that she said had been heavily urinated on by the tenant’s dog and children. The tenant accepted the carpet had been damaged, but stated he intended to clean it and could have cleaned it himself if his tenancy had not been terminated. I find this claim proved and I make a partial award. I find that the damage caused by a dog and children repeatedly urinating on the carpet is intentional damage.
The landlord claimed $209.00 for damage to curtains and nets. The tenant accepted liability for damage to the nets and the curtain at the ranchslider, but not for the curtains in the bedroom. The landlord stated that by the end of the tenancy the curtains were two years old. Only one photograph of a curtain was produced, and no invoice was produced. The tenant stated the curtains were far from new at the beginning of the tenancy. I make an award based on the tenant’s acceptance of liability only, and not for the remainder.
In calculating the award for carpet and curtains, I must take 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.
Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For The Pranesh And Pranita Trust claim the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant admits removing a battery from a smoke alarm. His explanation for doing so was because the smoke alarm beeping interfered with his recording music.
I find the tenant had a genuine reason for removing the battery from the smoke alarm and no malice was intended. However this does not negate the fact that the tenant has committed an unlawful act and has caused danger to himself and his family, and to the landlord’s property by doing so.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that a nominal award of exemplary damages is sufficient to send a message to the tenant that he must not interfere with smoke alarms in any residential premises in future.
The landlord is claiming $500.00 in compensation for delay she encountered in reletting the property that she says was the result of the tenant’s bad credit with the power company that meant work was delayed in remedying damage at the property. No corroborating information was provided by the landlord.
The landlord stated that the property was re-tenanted 8 days after the tenant vacated, but this could have been reduced to only 3 days if she had not encountered difficulties in having the power reconnected.
I am not persuaded that delays, such as there were, in re-tenanting the property can be laid at the tenant’s feet. No loss is proved, and no causation is proved either.

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 4836561 — net $2,208.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: and replacement	$1,923.75	Carpet Cleaning: and replacement
Cleaning	$480.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Gate	$447.35	Repairs: Gate
Replace furnishings	$90.00	Replace furnishings
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00	Lawns and Garden work
Water rates	$68.25	Water rates
Exemplary damages; interfering with smoke alarms	$100.00	Exemplary damages; interfering with smoke alarms
Net award	$2,208.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,208.71

Claims and awards for application 4836561 — net $2,208.71 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning: and replacement

Amount: $1,923.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: and replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Gate

Amount: $447.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Gate

Replace furnishings

Amount: $90.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Water Rates

Order

James Whetu must pay Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For The Pranesh And Pranita Trust $2,208.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $940.64 (5293857-015) to Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For The Pranesh And Pranita Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy was terminated as of 28 April 2024 by Order of the Tenancy Tribunal on 23 April 2024. At today’s hearing, the landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $68.25. The tenant did not dispute this amount.

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. The tenant accepted a claim by the landlord for $480.00 for cleaning.
The tenant disputed a claim by the landlord for rubbish removal and garden tidy up. The landlord claimed $200.00 but did not provide an invoice and the information provided by the landlord did not set out what work was done, by whom, how long it took and at what cost. This claim is not proved.
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 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 tenant accepted a claim by the landlord of $447.35 for repairs to a gate for damage caused by the tenant’s dog.
The landlord claimed $1,184.00 for painting at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that walls had been graffiti-ed and damaged. The tenant disagreed with this information. The landlord did not provide photographs in support of her claim that showed the graffiti, nor invoices in support of the amounts claimed. In the absence of corroborating information, this claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $2,565.00 to clean and replace carpet that she said had been heavily urinated on by the tenant’s dog and children. The tenant accepted the carpet had been damaged, but stated he intended to clean it and could have cleaned it himself if his tenancy had not been terminated. I find this claim proved and I make a partial award. I find that the damage caused by a dog and children repeatedly urinating on the carpet is intentional damage.
The landlord claimed $209.00 for damage to curtains and nets. The tenant accepted liability for damage to the nets and the curtain at the ranchslider, but not for the curtains in the bedroom. The landlord stated that by the end of the tenancy the curtains were two years old. Only one photograph of a curtain was produced, and no invoice was produced. The tenant stated the curtains were far from new at the beginning of the tenancy. I make an award based on the tenant’s acceptance of liability only, and not for the remainder.
In calculating the award for carpet and curtains, I must take 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.
Pranesh Chand And Prabha Chand As Trustees For The Pranesh And Pranita Trust claim the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant admits removing a battery from a smoke alarm. His explanation for doing so was because the smoke alarm beeping interfered with his recording music.
I find the tenant had a genuine reason for removing the battery from the smoke alarm and no malice was intended. However this does not negate the fact that the tenant has committed an unlawful act and has caused danger to himself and his family, and to the landlord’s property by doing so.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that a nominal award of exemplary damages is sufficient to send a message to the tenant that he must not interfere with smoke alarms in any residential premises in future.
The landlord is claiming $500.00 in compensation for delay she encountered in reletting the property that she says was the result of the tenant’s bad credit with the power company that meant work was delayed in remedying damage at the property. No corroborating information was provided by the landlord.
The landlord stated that the property was re-tenanted 8 days after the tenant vacated, but this could have been reduced to only 3 days if she had not encountered difficulties in having the power reconnected.
I am not persuaded that delays, such as there were, in re-tenanting the property can be laid at the tenant’s feet. No loss is proved, and no causation is proved either.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836561 — Cleanliness at 5A Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836561 — Cleanliness at 5A Angelo Avenue, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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 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