What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4917056?

The tribunal order states: Nelly Mafoche, Hannah Kazadi and Paidamoyo Beaular Machakaire must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4917056?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,137.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,392.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917056?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917056?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4917056?

The tribunal order states: Nelly Mafoche, Hannah Kazadi and Paidamoyo Beaular Machakaire must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4917056?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,137.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,392.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917056?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917056?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Toanga Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4917056 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917056 — net $4,090.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 21 May 2024	$1,137.71	Rent to 21 May 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: carpet	$2,392.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,090.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,090.65

Order

Nelly Mafoche, Hannah Kazadi and Paidamoyo Beaular Machakaire must pay Crockers Property Management Limited $4,090.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 3 September 2024 along with Ms Kazadi and Ms Mafoche. The third tenant, Ms Machakaire, did not attend. The Tribunal received an email on the morning of the hearing indicating that she would attend via a representative, but no one appeared.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond of $2,640.00 was refunded to the landlord by order of the Tribunal on 15 May 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started on 9 March 2022 and ended on 21 May 2024 when all the tenants had vacated. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing for rent at the end of the tenancy ($1,137.71) after deduction of the bond. Ms Mafoche provided a spreadsheet which calculated the arrears in the same amount as the landlord.
There is an issue between the tenants about whether everyone paid their share of the rent, or over-or-under paid. This is an issue for the tenants to resolve by agreement or through the Disputes Tribunal. In the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenants are jointly liable for the rent, as reflected in the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Did the tenants 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.
The tenants did not remove all their rubbish. Some furniture was left in the yard where the bins are. A mattress and a chair were left outside on the verge. I award the rubbish removal costs ($230.00).
The landlord cleaned the carpets at the end of the tenancy because there were stains (possibly from candles) and burn marks in all the bedrooms. Ms Mafoche criticised the landlord for cleaning the carpets as well as claiming the cost of replacing the carpet. The landlord said he was hoping that cleaning would restore the carpet, and while it helped, it did not remove the burn marks. I do not consider that it was unreasonable for the landlord to clean the carpets in the hope of restoring them. I award the carpet cleaning costs ($195.50).
The landlord said the oven and bathroom needed cleaning but there were no photographs showing this. He also said that part of the cleaning cost was to remove marks from the walls. I consider that the marks which can be seen are fair wear and tear – the tenants lived at the premises for over 2 years, and it was inevitable that there would be some scuffing to the walls. I decline to award the general cleaning costs claimed ($402.50).
The small garden area needed trimming at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed ($115.00) may be at the top of a reasonable range but is not excessive.

Are the tenants 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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $680.00. The insurance excess was $250.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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.
As noted above, the carpet was damaged and about 40m² had to be replaced. Some of the damage was caused by the tenants carelessly letting candles drip onto and burn the carpet. I do not consider the damage was intentional – the tenants did not set out to damage the premises.
The carpet had to be replaced at a cost of $2,990.00. According to the landlord there were about 10 burn marks. Applying the insurance excess to each area of damage would result in an award of $2,500.00. However, it is also necessary to take betterment into account. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, which continued for just over 2 years. I award $2,392.00 for replacement carpet after allowing for betterment (80% of $2,990.00).
There was also relatively minor damage to the walls in about 7 different places. Of these, two areas required plastering and painting. The damage seems to have been caused by Blu Tack being used to attach things to the walls.
The tenants explained that the walls of the house were fragile and easy to damage. They may be right, but I consider the tenants are liable for damage caused when removing items they have attached to the walls (see section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The cost of repair ($552.00) is reasonable, but I consider the tenants’ liability is limited to $500.00 (twice the excess of $250.00). Filing fee and suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
Both tenants requested suppression pursuant to section 95A of the Act. Neither suggested that they have a privacy interest which outweighs the public interest in open justice. There is no compelling reason for a suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917056 — net $4,090.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 21 May 2024	$1,137.71	Rent to 21 May 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: carpet	$2,392.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,090.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,090.65

Order

Nelly Mafoche, Hannah Kazadi and Paidamoyo Beaular Machakaire must pay Crockers Property Management Limited $4,090.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 3 September 2024 along with Ms Kazadi and Ms Mafoche. The third tenant, Ms Machakaire, did not attend. The Tribunal received an email on the morning of the hearing indicating that she would attend via a representative, but no one appeared.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond of $2,640.00 was refunded to the landlord by order of the Tribunal on 15 May 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started on 9 March 2022 and ended on 21 May 2024 when all the tenants had vacated. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing for rent at the end of the tenancy ($1,137.71) after deduction of the bond. Ms Mafoche provided a spreadsheet which calculated the arrears in the same amount as the landlord.
There is an issue between the tenants about whether everyone paid their share of the rent, or over-or-under paid. This is an issue for the tenants to resolve by agreement or through the Disputes Tribunal. In the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenants are jointly liable for the rent, as reflected in the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Did the tenants 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.
The tenants did not remove all their rubbish. Some furniture was left in the yard where the bins are. A mattress and a chair were left outside on the verge. I award the rubbish removal costs ($230.00).
The landlord cleaned the carpets at the end of the tenancy because there were stains (possibly from candles) and burn marks in all the bedrooms. Ms Mafoche criticised the landlord for cleaning the carpets as well as claiming the cost of replacing the carpet. The landlord said he was hoping that cleaning would restore the carpet, and while it helped, it did not remove the burn marks. I do not consider that it was unreasonable for the landlord to clean the carpets in the hope of restoring them. I award the carpet cleaning costs ($195.50).
The landlord said the oven and bathroom needed cleaning but there were no photographs showing this. He also said that part of the cleaning cost was to remove marks from the walls. I consider that the marks which can be seen are fair wear and tear – the tenants lived at the premises for over 2 years, and it was inevitable that there would be some scuffing to the walls. I decline to award the general cleaning costs claimed ($402.50).
The small garden area needed trimming at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed ($115.00) may be at the top of a reasonable range but is not excessive.

Are the tenants 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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $680.00. The insurance excess was $250.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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.
As noted above, the carpet was damaged and about 40m² had to be replaced. Some of the damage was caused by the tenants carelessly letting candles drip onto and burn the carpet. I do not consider the damage was intentional – the tenants did not set out to damage the premises.
The carpet had to be replaced at a cost of $2,990.00. According to the landlord there were about 10 burn marks. Applying the insurance excess to each area of damage would result in an award of $2,500.00. However, it is also necessary to take betterment into account. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, which continued for just over 2 years. I award $2,392.00 for replacement carpet after allowing for betterment (80% of $2,990.00).
There was also relatively minor damage to the walls in about 7 different places. Of these, two areas required plastering and painting. The damage seems to have been caused by Blu Tack being used to attach things to the walls.
The tenants explained that the walls of the house were fragile and easy to damage. They may be right, but I consider the tenants are liable for damage caused when removing items they have attached to the walls (see section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The cost of repair ($552.00) is reasonable, but I consider the tenants’ liability is limited to $500.00 (twice the excess of $250.00). Filing fee and suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
Both tenants requested suppression pursuant to section 95A of the Act. Neither suggested that they have a privacy interest which outweighs the public interest in open justice. There is no compelling reason for a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917056 — Cleanliness at 14 Toanga Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917056 — Cleanliness at 14 Toanga Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants 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 rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions