What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904262?

The tribunal order states: Virginia Tina Emma Kino and Tama Rangihau Jack Toto must pay Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 4904262?

Rent Arrears: $1,308.36 awarded to landlord; Paint Holes After Plastering: $40.80 awarded to landlord; Plaster Holes: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $544.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904262?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869037-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904262?

The tribunal order states: Virginia Tina Emma Kino and Tama Rangihau Jack Toto must pay Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 4904262?

Rent Arrears: $1,308.36 awarded to landlord; Paint Holes After Plastering: $40.80 awarded to landlord; Plaster Holes: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $544.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904262?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869037-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904262 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904262 — net $2,043.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29.3.2024	$1,308.36	Rent arrears to 29.3.2024
Rubbish removal	$544.52	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Plaster holes	$150.00	Repairs: Plaster holes
Repairs: Paint holes after plastering	$40.80	Repairs: Paint holes after plastering
Net award	$2,043.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,043.68

Order

Virginia Tina Emma Kino and Tama Rangihau Jack Toto must pay Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities $2,043.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
80 Total award$2,043.68 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,043.68

Reasons

Ms Rea attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenants, the last three digits being 910, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as at the hearing date of 24 September 2024 (including payments made by the tenants from the end of the tenancy to 24 September 2024), which is $1,308.36.

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 landlord said the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an inspection report from the end of the tenancy, with photographs, showing the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed rubbish left at the property, which included a large couch, chair, cabinet and a number of other items, including plants and pots on the balcony. The landlord said it cost them $544.52 to have this rubbish removed, which I find is reasonable, given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $544.52 for rubbish removal.
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. Hole in the kitchen wall b. Hole in a bedroom wall.
I find that both holes in the kitchen and bedroom walls, from the photographs, appear to have been intentional damage on the part of the tenants. 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 $201.00 for the plasterer’s repairs and painting of the holes. Given the photographs of the holes and other evidence, I find that $150.00 is a reasonable cost of plastering and stopping the two holes in the kitchen and bedroom walls, and that the remaining $51.00 of the cost claimed by the landlord is attributable to painting the holes.
I award the landlord $150.00 for plastering the holes in the kitchen and bedroom walls.
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.
In relation to the painting cost of $51.00 remaining, there was no evidence provided about when the property was last painted. From the photographs, it appears that the walls in the property have relatively new paint. I note that this tenancy began on 14 September 2022. I find the paint in the property is likely around 2 years old, before the tenancy began. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $51.00 painting cost I find reasonable to paint the plastered repairs for depreciation to an award of $40.80 for the painting.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression for the tenants, as part of their policy to do so. There was no request made by the tenants for suppression, nor was there any evidence adduced as to why the tenants should be granted name suppression. As such, I decline to grant the tenants name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904262 — net $2,043.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29.3.2024	$1,308.36	Rent arrears to 29.3.2024
Rubbish removal	$544.52	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Plaster holes	$150.00	Repairs: Plaster holes
Repairs: Paint holes after plastering	$40.80	Repairs: Paint holes after plastering
Net award	$2,043.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,043.68

Order

Virginia Tina Emma Kino and Tama Rangihau Jack Toto must pay Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities $2,043.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
80 Total award$2,043.68 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,043.68

Reasons

Ms Rea attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenants, the last three digits being 910, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as at the hearing date of 24 September 2024 (including payments made by the tenants from the end of the tenancy to 24 September 2024), which is $1,308.36.

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 landlord said the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an inspection report from the end of the tenancy, with photographs, showing the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed rubbish left at the property, which included a large couch, chair, cabinet and a number of other items, including plants and pots on the balcony. The landlord said it cost them $544.52 to have this rubbish removed, which I find is reasonable, given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $544.52 for rubbish removal.
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. Hole in the kitchen wall b. Hole in a bedroom wall.
I find that both holes in the kitchen and bedroom walls, from the photographs, appear to have been intentional damage on the part of the tenants. 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 $201.00 for the plasterer’s repairs and painting of the holes. Given the photographs of the holes and other evidence, I find that $150.00 is a reasonable cost of plastering and stopping the two holes in the kitchen and bedroom walls, and that the remaining $51.00 of the cost claimed by the landlord is attributable to painting the holes.
I award the landlord $150.00 for plastering the holes in the kitchen and bedroom walls.
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.
In relation to the painting cost of $51.00 remaining, there was no evidence provided about when the property was last painted. From the photographs, it appears that the walls in the property have relatively new paint. I note that this tenancy began on 14 September 2022. I find the paint in the property is likely around 2 years old, before the tenancy began. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $51.00 painting cost I find reasonable to paint the plastered repairs for depreciation to an award of $40.80 for the painting.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression for the tenants, as part of their policy to do so. There was no request made by the tenants for suppression, nor was there any evidence adduced as to why the tenants should be granted name suppression. As such, I decline to grant the tenants name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904262 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 10, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904262 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 10, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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