What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896163?

The tribunal order states: Rose Tolovae Aute must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,859.79

How much money was awarded in case 4896163?

Cleaning: $651.16 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $983.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,225.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896163?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11581273-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896163?

The tribunal order states: Rose Tolovae Aute must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,859.79

How much money was awarded in case 4896163?

Cleaning: $651.16 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $983.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,225.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896163?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896163?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11581273-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 201, 7 Malone Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896163 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896163. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,225.17	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$651.16	Cleaning
Repairs	$983.46	Repairs

Order

Rose Tolovae Aute must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,859.79 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The following is a quote from the exit report provided by the landlord:
I consider the amounts claimed by the landlord to be reasonable.
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 Property left in extremely poor condition holes in almost every wall with graffiti, window ledges have graffiti carved into them burn holes in vinyl in kitchen due to fire on stove which also caused smoke damage. Stove not maintained by cleaning so will need replacing. Wardrobe door removed and sitting against wall in hallway, carpet from 2 bedrooms removed by tenant due to dogs and puppy faeces and urine. Carpet in 3rd bedroom and lounge heavily stained will need to be replaced. Property infested with cockroaches, tenant canceled [sic] fumigation prior to move. Furniture left in property and stairwell also balastrade [sic] and walls on stairwell leading to tenants property has graffiti and carved graffiti on both. All of the damage is tenant liability 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 damage that was caused during the tenancy included many holes in the walls and burn holes in a benchtop, which then had to be replaced.
The amounts ordered are 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. 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. Non-Publication and suppression
The landlord has sought an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
The grounds advanced are the likely prejudice to the tenant in the event of an adverse decision.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.
The tenant has not made any application for suppression of her name but the terms of Section 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.
The landlord has provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting the assertion of likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is in the public interest for there to be an order for suppression of the tenant’s name. Name suppression of the tenant is therefore declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896163. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,225.17	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$651.16	Cleaning
Repairs	$983.46	Repairs

Order

Rose Tolovae Aute must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,859.79 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The following is a quote from the exit report provided by the landlord:
I consider the amounts claimed by the landlord to be reasonable.
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 Property left in extremely poor condition holes in almost every wall with graffiti, window ledges have graffiti carved into them burn holes in vinyl in kitchen due to fire on stove which also caused smoke damage. Stove not maintained by cleaning so will need replacing. Wardrobe door removed and sitting against wall in hallway, carpet from 2 bedrooms removed by tenant due to dogs and puppy faeces and urine. Carpet in 3rd bedroom and lounge heavily stained will need to be replaced. Property infested with cockroaches, tenant canceled [sic] fumigation prior to move. Furniture left in property and stairwell also balastrade [sic] and walls on stairwell leading to tenants property has graffiti and carved graffiti on both. All of the damage is tenant liability 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 damage that was caused during the tenancy included many holes in the walls and burn holes in a benchtop, which then had to be replaced.
The amounts ordered are 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. 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. Non-Publication and suppression
The landlord has sought an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
The grounds advanced are the likely prejudice to the tenant in the event of an adverse decision.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.
The tenant has not made any application for suppression of her name but the terms of Section 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.
The landlord has provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting the assertion of likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is in the public interest for there to be an order for suppression of the tenant’s name. Name suppression of the tenant is therefore declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896163 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 201, 7 Malone Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896163 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 201, 7 Malone Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

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

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