What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907789?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3119502-003) to Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 4907789?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907789?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907789?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3119502-003) to Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 4907789?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907789?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907789 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907789 — net $2,248.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 July 2024	$4,200.00	Rent arrears to 5 July 2024
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$253.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,248.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,248.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3119502-003) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Qing Yao Meng immediately.
Leotau Toki and Latu Toki must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Qing Yao Meng $2,248.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr Gill and Mr Liu. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the application in accordance with the relevant service provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ 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.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 1 July 2023. The fixed term was to end on 5 July 2024.
Mr Liu explained that the tenants contacted the landlord in May to say that they wished to end the fixed term early but after being advised that they were in fixed term tenancy said that they would stay. However, the tenants moved out on 10 June 2024 and I was told also left the country.
The landlord provided rent records which show that the tenant paid rent up to 17 May 2024 but that no rent was received for the final seven weeks of the tenancy. The rent arrears claimed for that period are $4,200.
The tenants did not apply to the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. The landlord did not re-let the property. I was advised that renovations were required, in large part due to the condition of the carpet and walls at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent is proved.

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) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Mr Liu attended the exit inspection and explained that the carpet was very dirty and stained, there were marks and drawings on the walls, and the rangehood was very dirty. He produced photos showing all of these issues and that drawers had not been wiped out and windowsills and there were spillages on the lino in the kitchen. The landlord also produced entry inspection photos.
The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $750 plus GST for cleaning.
I was told that ultimately the carpet had to be replaced and the walls painted, but the landlord has not claimed for those items in this application.
I am conscious that in considering the sum claimed for cleaning the tenants only need to leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy”. They do not need to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. In my view the proportion of the invoice that represents the cleaning required to get the property to that condition is $500 plus GST. I therefore order compensation to the landlord of $575.00.
The landlord claimed the amount of $220.00 plus GST for rubbish removal. The landlord provided photos showing that a bed base and mattress had been left behind, together with a full black rubbish bag, a suitcase and other household items, and the rubbish bin in the kitchen was still full.
I consider that the amount claimed for rubbish removal is reasonable given the amount of rubbish left behind. I order that the tenant pay compensation to the landlord for the rubbish removal ($253.00 including GST).

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 landlord claimed that a window was broken during the tenancy and provided a photos showing a window with the glass missing entirely.
The landlord has obtained a quote for repairs ($575 including GST) but Mr Gill and Mr Liu advised that they are no longer managing the property and so cannot confirm that they window has in fact been replaced and could not produce an invoice.
I was made aware that the landlord has claimed on their insurance for the carpet and wall damage but there was no information as to whether the window might form part of the insurance claim, and if so, what the excess amount might be.
I also note that the claim for window damage was not included in the landlord’s application (despite the landlord becoming aware that the landlord was broken before the tenancy ended).
In the circumstances the claim for window damage is not proved and is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Qing Yao Meng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907789 — net $2,248.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 July 2024	$4,200.00	Rent arrears to 5 July 2024
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$253.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,248.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,248.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3119502-003) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Qing Yao Meng immediately.
Leotau Toki and Latu Toki must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Qing Yao Meng $2,248.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr Gill and Mr Liu. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the application in accordance with the relevant service provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ 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.

How much is owed for rent?

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 1 July 2023. The fixed term was to end on 5 July 2024.
Mr Liu explained that the tenants contacted the landlord in May to say that they wished to end the fixed term early but after being advised that they were in fixed term tenancy said that they would stay. However, the tenants moved out on 10 June 2024 and I was told also left the country.
The landlord provided rent records which show that the tenant paid rent up to 17 May 2024 but that no rent was received for the final seven weeks of the tenancy. The rent arrears claimed for that period are $4,200.
The tenants did not apply to the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. The landlord did not re-let the property. I was advised that renovations were required, in large part due to the condition of the carpet and walls at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent is proved.

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) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Mr Liu attended the exit inspection and explained that the carpet was very dirty and stained, there were marks and drawings on the walls, and the rangehood was very dirty. He produced photos showing all of these issues and that drawers had not been wiped out and windowsills and there were spillages on the lino in the kitchen. The landlord also produced entry inspection photos.
The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $750 plus GST for cleaning.
I was told that ultimately the carpet had to be replaced and the walls painted, but the landlord has not claimed for those items in this application.
I am conscious that in considering the sum claimed for cleaning the tenants only need to leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy”. They do not need to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. In my view the proportion of the invoice that represents the cleaning required to get the property to that condition is $500 plus GST. I therefore order compensation to the landlord of $575.00.
The landlord claimed the amount of $220.00 plus GST for rubbish removal. The landlord provided photos showing that a bed base and mattress had been left behind, together with a full black rubbish bag, a suitcase and other household items, and the rubbish bin in the kitchen was still full.
I consider that the amount claimed for rubbish removal is reasonable given the amount of rubbish left behind. I order that the tenant pay compensation to the landlord for the rubbish removal ($253.00 including GST).

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 landlord claimed that a window was broken during the tenancy and provided a photos showing a window with the glass missing entirely.
The landlord has obtained a quote for repairs ($575 including GST) but Mr Gill and Mr Liu advised that they are no longer managing the property and so cannot confirm that they window has in fact been replaced and could not produce an invoice.
I was made aware that the landlord has claimed on their insurance for the carpet and wall damage but there was no information as to whether the window might form part of the insurance claim, and if so, what the excess amount might be.
I also note that the claim for window damage was not included in the landlord’s application (despite the landlord becoming aware that the landlord was broken before the tenancy ended).
In the circumstances the claim for window damage is not proved and is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Qing Yao Meng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907789 — Rent arrears at 38 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907789 — Rent arrears at 38 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions