What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891720?

The tribunal order states: Che Quintin Hamilton must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4891720?

Cleaning: $437.41 awarded to landlord; Plaster Hole In Lounge Wall: $84.62 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,361.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891720?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891720?

The tribunal order states: Che Quintin Hamilton must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4891720?

Cleaning: $437.41 awarded to landlord; Plaster Hole In Lounge Wall: $84.62 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,361.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891720?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 202, 22 Portage Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891720 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4891720 — net $1,883.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$437.41	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,361.30	Rubbish removal
Repairs: plaster hole in lounge wall	$84.62	Repairs: plaster hole in lounge wall
Net award	$1,883.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,883.33

Order

Che Quintin Hamilton must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,883.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Gray attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenant, Mr Hamilton, the last three digits being 644, was called twice with no response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 8 April 2024. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the rent arrears claim, as this had been dealt with in an earlier Tribunal order in application 4814781.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an exit inspection report dated 8 April 2024 with photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed large furniture, including a mattress, tables, chairs, that the tenant left which had to be disposed of, the kitchen cupboards were full of food and other items, as was the kitchen bench, there were clothes scattered throughout the house and much other rubbish strewn throughout the property. The photographs also showed a dirty stove and an uncleaned property generally.
The landlord claimed $1,361.30 for removing 10 cubic metres of rubbish. This included the cost of both removing and dumping the rubbish, including large furniture. Given the photographs and other evidence provided, and the large amount of rubbish and large furniture, I find this to be a reasonable cost to remove the rubbish and award $1,361.30 to the landlord for rubbish removal.
The landlord claimed $437.41 for cleaning the property after the extensive rubbish was removed from the property. I find this to be a reasonable cost for cleaning the property, given the evidence, as the tenant obviously made no effort to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I award the landlord $437.41 for cleaning the property.
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 landlord said the tenant caused a large hole in the lounge wall and provided a photograph of this. They said it was bigger than a fist-size hole. Given the photograph of the damage, I find it was likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.
The landlord has claimed $84.62 for plastering the hole in the lounge wall. I find this to be a reasonable cost to plaster the hole. As such, I award the landlord $84.62 to plaster the hole.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4891720 — net $1,883.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$437.41	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,361.30	Rubbish removal
Repairs: plaster hole in lounge wall	$84.62	Repairs: plaster hole in lounge wall
Net award	$1,883.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,883.33

Order

Che Quintin Hamilton must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,883.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Gray attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenant, Mr Hamilton, the last three digits being 644, was called twice with no response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 8 April 2024. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the rent arrears claim, as this had been dealt with in an earlier Tribunal order in application 4814781.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an exit inspection report dated 8 April 2024 with photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed large furniture, including a mattress, tables, chairs, that the tenant left which had to be disposed of, the kitchen cupboards were full of food and other items, as was the kitchen bench, there were clothes scattered throughout the house and much other rubbish strewn throughout the property. The photographs also showed a dirty stove and an uncleaned property generally.
The landlord claimed $1,361.30 for removing 10 cubic metres of rubbish. This included the cost of both removing and dumping the rubbish, including large furniture. Given the photographs and other evidence provided, and the large amount of rubbish and large furniture, I find this to be a reasonable cost to remove the rubbish and award $1,361.30 to the landlord for rubbish removal.
The landlord claimed $437.41 for cleaning the property after the extensive rubbish was removed from the property. I find this to be a reasonable cost for cleaning the property, given the evidence, as the tenant obviously made no effort to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I award the landlord $437.41 for cleaning the property.
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 landlord said the tenant caused a large hole in the lounge wall and provided a photograph of this. They said it was bigger than a fist-size hole. Given the photograph of the damage, I find it was likely intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.
The landlord has claimed $84.62 for plastering the hole in the lounge wall. I find this to be a reasonable cost to plaster the hole. As such, I award the landlord $84.62 to plaster the hole.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891720 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 202, 22 Portage Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891720 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 202, 22 Portage Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

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

Frequently asked questions