What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4969450?

The tribunal order states: Pila Lillo must pay Rent Now Property Management Limited $5,413.61

How much money was awarded in case 4969450?

Cleaning: $954.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,748.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Soffit: $1,612.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,619.20 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $448.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969450?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11009858-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4969450?

The tribunal order states: Pila Lillo must pay Rent Now Property Management Limited $5,413.61

How much money was awarded in case 4969450?

Cleaning: $954.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,748.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Soffit: $1,612.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,619.20 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $448.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969450?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11009858-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Hira Way, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4969450 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969450 — net $5,413.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 July 2024	$1,748.57	Rent arrears to 22 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$448.34	Water rates
Repairs: Soffit	$1,612.50	Repairs: Soffit
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,619.20	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: including carpet	$954.00	Cleaning: including carpet
Garage remote	$184.00	Garage remote
Repairs: Insurance excess for 7 claims	$2,800.00	Repairs: Insurance excess for 7 claims
Net award	$5,413.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,413.61

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to this decision.

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing or seek an adjournment.

Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,748.57 for rent arrears and $448.34 for unpaid water rates. The amounts are 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographs that show that at the end of the tenancy the tenant left the property with belongings and rubbish strewn throughout the inside and outside of the premises. No attempt at cleaning had been made and the premises was very dirty.

The landlord produced invoices which prove the amounts claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal.

The tenant did not leave the remote control that had been supplied for the garage, and this had to be replaced.

The landlord produced receipt that proves the amount claimed for the purchase of a replacement remote control.

The landlord claimed $253.00 for lawns and garden work and produced an invoice in support of the amount claimed. The photographs produced show the lawn to be very small and in my opinion, not particularly badly overgrown. The landlord stated there was a second lawn area that also needed mowing.

The tenant is not responsible for pruning or trimming shrubs or bushes, and need only leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy state. I have awarded a lesser amount than is claimed as I consider the amount claimed must either include a charge for work the tenant is not liable for, or it is an unreasonably high claim.

The amount awarded is 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 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.

Photographs from the end of tenancy inspection show that during the tenancy, the tenant extensively damaged the carpet throughout the house. Large red and grey stains are visible in every room and area of the house.

I am of no doubt that the damage to the carpet exceeds fair wear and tear. I have considered whether the damage could be careless damage, or whether it is intentional damage. My view is that if the damage consisted of any one or two or three stains, the damage could be careless. However, the extent of the damage on its own persuades me that the damage goes beyond carelessness and is intentional. The damage has been caused by repeated acts that have not been adjusted or mitigated so as to avoid or even reduce the damage being caused. This has crossed the threshold into deliberate or intentional acts.

The landlord has insurance that has an excess of $400.00 per event. Seven events including damage to the carpets are included in the claim. These claims are proved.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has also made three claims for insurance excesses for bathrooms in which the fittings to the shower doors have come off and the doors have become inoperable. Photographs show the showers to all be of the same kind of corner shower with curved doors on runners. In my view, these shower doors are notoriously unreliable and often fail in the same way through normal usage. I am not persuaded that the damage as presented today, exceeds fair wear and tear. These claims are not 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.

Because Rent Now Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969450 — net $5,413.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 July 2024	$1,748.57	Rent arrears to 22 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$448.34	Water rates
Repairs: Soffit	$1,612.50	Repairs: Soffit
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,619.20	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: including carpet	$954.00	Cleaning: including carpet
Garage remote	$184.00	Garage remote
Repairs: Insurance excess for 7 claims	$2,800.00	Repairs: Insurance excess for 7 claims
Net award	$5,413.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,413.61

Order

Pila Lillo must pay Rent Now Property Management Limited $5,413.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,080.00 (5563407-005) to Rent Now Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to this decision.
The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing or seek an adjournment.
Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,748.57 for rent arrears and $448.34 for unpaid water rates. The amounts are 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs that show that at the end of the tenancy the tenant left the property with belongings and rubbish strewn throughout the inside and outside of the premises. No attempt at cleaning had been made and the premises was very dirty.
The landlord produced invoices which prove the amounts claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The tenant did not leave the remote control that had been supplied for the garage, and this had to be replaced.
The landlord produced receipt that proves the amount claimed for the purchase of a replacement remote control.
The landlord claimed $253.00 for lawns and garden work and produced an invoice in support of the amount claimed. The photographs produced show the lawn to be very small and in my opinion, not particularly badly overgrown. The landlord stated there was a second lawn area that also needed mowing.
The tenant is not responsible for pruning or trimming shrubs or bushes, and need only leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy state. I have awarded a lesser amount than is claimed as I consider the amount claimed must either include a charge for work the tenant is not liable for, or it is an unreasonably high claim.
The amount awarded is 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 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.
Photographs from the end of tenancy inspection show that during the tenancy, the tenant extensively damaged the carpet throughout the house. Large red and grey stains are visible in every room and area of the house.
I am of no doubt that the damage to the carpet exceeds fair wear and tear. I have considered whether the damage could be careless damage, or whether it is intentional damage. My view is that if the damage consisted of any one or two or three stains, the damage could be careless. However, the extent of the damage on its own persuades me that the damage goes beyond carelessness and is intentional. The damage has been caused by repeated acts that have not been adjusted or mitigated so as to avoid or even reduce the damage being caused. This has crossed the threshold into deliberate or intentional acts.
The landlord has insurance that has an excess of $400.00 per event. Seven events including damage to the carpets are included in the claim. These claims are proved.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has also made three claims for insurance excesses for bathrooms in which the fittings to the shower doors have come off and the doors have become inoperable. Photographs show the showers to all be of the same kind of corner shower with curved doors on runners. In my view, these shower doors are notoriously unreliable and often fail in the same way through normal usage. I am not persuaded that the damage as presented today, exceeds fair wear and tear. These claims are not 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.
Because Rent Now Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969450 — Property damage at 25 Hira Way, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969450 — Property damage at 25 Hira Way, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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