What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4965573?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4965573?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $149.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965573?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027258-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4965573?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4965573?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $149.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965573?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027258-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Barrys Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965573 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965573 — net $901.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$149.44	Water rates
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Wall damage	$150.00	Wall damage
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$901.44
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$901.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this Order.
This Order was amended on 04 November 2024 to include the filing fee in the table below.
Matthew Rickit is to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Narendra Kumar And Krish Patel $901.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (5044337-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Narendra Kumar And Krish Patel: $901.44 Matthew Rickit: $1,418.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and the landlord has applied for unpaid water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 July 2024. The landlord provided records showing the amount of the unpaid water rates. The tenant does not dispute the amount owing in water rates.
This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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 landlord has provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord did not provide a pre-tenancy report or photographs showing the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged that the property was provided to him at the start of the tenancy in a cleaner and tidier condition that it was left. The tenant said that he only had one month’s notice to vacate the premises and that this was not enough time to properly clean the premises.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $820.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the premises. The invoice does not specify the hourly rate charged. I consider the amount charged to be excessive. I consider 10 hours at $50 per hour plus GST to be reasonable and award $575.00 (including GST) for cleaning.
The tenant had retained one of the keys. The landlord has not claimed for this. However, I record that at the end of the hearing, the tenant returned the key to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
The tenancy agreement does not state whether or not the landlord has insurance for the premises that is relevant to the tenant’s liability as required by section 13A(2) of the RTA. At the hearing, the landlord advised that the premises were, in fact, insured and the excess was around $500.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms and damage to another wall by the door. The tenant acknowledges that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant says that the damage to the wall in the bedroom was caused when his 14 year old son kicked the wall during his sleep and the other damage was caused when his adult sister was running in the property and pushed the door handle into the wall.
I accept the tenant’s explanations of how the damage to the walls occurred. I find that the damage caused by his son during his sleep was neither intentional nor careless and the tenant is therefore not liable. I find that the damage caused by his sister was careless. I award $150.00 (including GST) for this damage.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965573 — net $901.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$149.44	Water rates
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Wall damage	$150.00	Wall damage
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$901.44
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$901.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this Order.
This Order was amended on 04 November 2024 to include the filing fee in the table below.
Matthew Rickit is to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Narendra Kumar And Krish Patel $901.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (5044337-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Narendra Kumar And Krish Patel: $901.44 Matthew Rickit: $1,418.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and the landlord has applied for unpaid water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 July 2024. The landlord provided records showing the amount of the unpaid water rates. The tenant does not dispute the amount owing in water rates.
This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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 landlord has provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord did not provide a pre-tenancy report or photographs showing the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged that the property was provided to him at the start of the tenancy in a cleaner and tidier condition that it was left. The tenant said that he only had one month’s notice to vacate the premises and that this was not enough time to properly clean the premises.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $820.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the premises. The invoice does not specify the hourly rate charged. I consider the amount charged to be excessive. I consider 10 hours at $50 per hour plus GST to be reasonable and award $575.00 (including GST) for cleaning.
The tenant had retained one of the keys. The landlord has not claimed for this. However, I record that at the end of the hearing, the tenant returned the key to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
The tenancy agreement does not state whether or not the landlord has insurance for the premises that is relevant to the tenant’s liability as required by section 13A(2) of the RTA. At the hearing, the landlord advised that the premises were, in fact, insured and the excess was around $500.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the wall in one of the bedrooms and damage to another wall by the door. The tenant acknowledges that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant says that the damage to the wall in the bedroom was caused when his 14 year old son kicked the wall during his sleep and the other damage was caused when his adult sister was running in the property and pushed the door handle into the wall.
I accept the tenant’s explanations of how the damage to the walls occurred. I find that the damage caused by his son during his sleep was neither intentional nor careless and the tenant is therefore not liable. I find that the damage caused by his sister was careless. I award $150.00 (including GST) for this damage.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965573 — Cleanliness at 4 Barrys Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965573 — Cleanliness at 4 Barrys Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with his 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