What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872420?

The tribunal order states: John Mutua must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Kumar, Vijay

How much money was awarded in case 4872420?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flea And Cockroach Treatment: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872420?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10686713-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872420?

The tribunal order states: John Mutua must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Kumar, Vijay

How much money was awarded in case 4872420?

Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flea And Cockroach Treatment: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $316.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872420?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10686713-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61B Palmers Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872420 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872420 — net $4,270.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$137.06	Water rates
Flea and cockroach treatment	$200.00	Flea and cockroach treatment
Carpet Cleaning: Steam clean	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning: Steam clean
Lock/key replacement	$316.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: House cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning: House cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,380.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$402.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,270.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,270.50

Order

John Mutua must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Kumar, Vijay & Bushan, Anita $4,270.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$137.06 Flea and cockroach treatment$200.00 Carpet Cleaning: Steam clean$170.00 Lock/key replacement$316.50 Cleaning: House cleaning$644.00 Rubbish removal$1,380.00 Lawns and Garden work$402.50 Repairs$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,270.50 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,270.50

Reasons

Ms Paretovich and Ms McKie attended the hearing as the agent for the landlord. Ms Paretovich addressed me. Ms McKie was assisting Ms Paretovich.
Mr Mutua, the tenant, did not attend the hearing.
Ms Paretovich submitted that she did not expect the tenant to be at the hearing because she had difficulty contacting him. She noted that the tenant was somewhat hard to reach by email and phone, and that he had stopped redirecting his rent around the same time he moved to Australia. She submitted this led her to believe the tenant would not attend the hearing, as he had not engaged in previous mediations either.
Accordingly, I am satisfied the hearing can continue in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

In a previous application (4822237), it was adjudicated that the tenant abandoned the property on 5 February 2024. The landlord provided a water rates invoice proving the amount owing at 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.
Ms Paretovich described the property's condition after the tenant abandoned it as severely neglected and infested. Key points include: a. The carpet was stained and in poor condition, requiring multiple cleaning attempts to make it rentable again. b. The property was found to be infested with cockroaches and had a significant amount of rubbish left inside, including furniture and personal items. c. Perishable items were removed first to address the pest issue, followed by a thorough cleaning, which still left the property unsuitable for re-renting. d. There were damages noted, including holes in the walls and dirty surfaces that required repainting and further cleaning.
I have reviewed the exit inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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: a. Damages to the walls (see photos 394 and 396 of the exit inspection report).
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Ms Paretovich submitted an invoice for $8,165 but only sought a portion or $2,000 for “repainting”. Her submissions regarding the repainting due to dirtiness and damage to the walls included the following points: a. She acknowledged that there were areas of the walls that were very dirty and required cleaning, along with holes and scrape marks that necessitated repainting. b. She mentioned that the condition of the walls was poor, with specific references to a large hole in one of the bedrooms and general dirtiness throughout the property. c. Despite the cleaning efforts, Ms Paretovich felt that the property was not returned to a state suitable for re-renting, which justified the need for repainting. d. She claimed that while the walls were certainly damaged, the costs being sought from the tenant for the repairs were excessive, and she was only claiming a portion of the invoice ($2,000) for the repainting work. e. Ms Paretovich emphasised that the owner wanted the property to look fresh to attract new tenants, which influenced her decision to pursue a reduced cost.
I acknowledge Ms Paretovich was trying to argue for her client’s best interest. However, there is a difference between "cleaning" and "painting". In my view, a. Cleaning is intended to restore the property to a reasonable condition, while painting is necessary when there are damages or significant dirt that cannot be removed through cleaning alone. b. If the walls were merely dirty, cleaning should suffice to address the issue. However, if there were actual damages, such as holes or marks, then repainting would be required. c. Repainting should not be solely for the purpose of cleanliness but should be justified by actual damage caused by the tenant.
The distinction was important because charging for repainting when the issue could be resolved through cleaning seemed unfair.
Accordingly, I consider $1,000 to repair the holes and repaint the walls was reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Kumar, Vijay & Bushan, Anita has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872420 — net $4,270.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$137.06	Water rates
Flea and cockroach treatment	$200.00	Flea and cockroach treatment
Carpet Cleaning: Steam clean	$170.00	Carpet Cleaning: Steam clean
Lock/key replacement	$316.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: House cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning: House cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,380.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$402.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,270.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,270.50

Order

John Mutua must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Kumar, Vijay & Bushan, Anita $4,270.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$137.06 Flea and cockroach treatment$200.00 Carpet Cleaning: Steam clean$170.00 Lock/key replacement$316.50 Cleaning: House cleaning$644.00 Rubbish removal$1,380.00 Lawns and Garden work$402.50 Repairs$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,270.50 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,270.50

Reasons

Ms Paretovich and Ms McKie attended the hearing as the agent for the landlord. Ms Paretovich addressed me. Ms McKie was assisting Ms Paretovich.
Mr Mutua, the tenant, did not attend the hearing.
Ms Paretovich submitted that she did not expect the tenant to be at the hearing because she had difficulty contacting him. She noted that the tenant was somewhat hard to reach by email and phone, and that he had stopped redirecting his rent around the same time he moved to Australia. She submitted this led her to believe the tenant would not attend the hearing, as he had not engaged in previous mediations either.
Accordingly, I am satisfied the hearing can continue in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

In a previous application (4822237), it was adjudicated that the tenant abandoned the property on 5 February 2024. The landlord provided a water rates invoice proving the amount owing at 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.
Ms Paretovich described the property's condition after the tenant abandoned it as severely neglected and infested. Key points include: a. The carpet was stained and in poor condition, requiring multiple cleaning attempts to make it rentable again. b. The property was found to be infested with cockroaches and had a significant amount of rubbish left inside, including furniture and personal items. c. Perishable items were removed first to address the pest issue, followed by a thorough cleaning, which still left the property unsuitable for re-renting. d. There were damages noted, including holes in the walls and dirty surfaces that required repainting and further cleaning.
I have reviewed the exit inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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: a. Damages to the walls (see photos 394 and 396 of the exit inspection report).
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Ms Paretovich submitted an invoice for $8,165 but only sought a portion or $2,000 for “repainting”. Her submissions regarding the repainting due to dirtiness and damage to the walls included the following points: a. She acknowledged that there were areas of the walls that were very dirty and required cleaning, along with holes and scrape marks that necessitated repainting. b. She mentioned that the condition of the walls was poor, with specific references to a large hole in one of the bedrooms and general dirtiness throughout the property. c. Despite the cleaning efforts, Ms Paretovich felt that the property was not returned to a state suitable for re-renting, which justified the need for repainting. d. She claimed that while the walls were certainly damaged, the costs being sought from the tenant for the repairs were excessive, and she was only claiming a portion of the invoice ($2,000) for the repainting work. e. Ms Paretovich emphasised that the owner wanted the property to look fresh to attract new tenants, which influenced her decision to pursue a reduced cost.
I acknowledge Ms Paretovich was trying to argue for her client’s best interest. However, there is a difference between "cleaning" and "painting". In my view, a. Cleaning is intended to restore the property to a reasonable condition, while painting is necessary when there are damages or significant dirt that cannot be removed through cleaning alone. b. If the walls were merely dirty, cleaning should suffice to address the issue. However, if there were actual damages, such as holes or marks, then repainting would be required. c. Repainting should not be solely for the purpose of cleanliness but should be justified by actual damage caused by the tenant.
The distinction was important because charging for repainting when the issue could be resolved through cleaning seemed unfair.
Accordingly, I consider $1,000 to repair the holes and repaint the walls was reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Kumar, Vijay & Bushan, Anita has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872420 — Property damage at 61B Palmers Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872420 — Property damage at 61B Palmers Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

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