What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4982869?

The tribunal order states: Geyser Cashmore must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4982869?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $103.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $2.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $814.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinetry: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $67.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $1,010.24 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: heat pump remot…: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $5,924.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11028125-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4982869?

The tribunal order states: Geyser Cashmore must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4982869?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $103.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $2.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $814.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinetry: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $67.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $1,010.24 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: heat pump remot…: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $5,924.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11028125-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Beech Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4982869 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4982869 — net $8,759.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$220.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs to walls and doors	$5,924.80	Repairs to walls and doors
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace damaged carpet	$850.00	Replace damaged carpet
Window repairs	$814.43	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$250.50	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$540.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: toilet seat	$67.50	Repairs: toilet seat
Replace furnishings: dishwasher	$1,010.24	Replace furnishings: dishwasher
Cleaning	$190.00	Cleaning
Light bulb	$2.00	Light bulb
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: socket in lounge	$103.90	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: socket in lounge
Repairs: kitchen cabinetry	$241.50	Repairs: kitchen cabinetry
Replace furnishings: heat pump remote	$138.00	Replace furnishings: heat pump remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,759.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,759.37

Order

Geyser Cashmore must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Chenghui Liao $ 8,759.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5948218-004) to Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Chenghui Liao immediately.

Reasons

The Property Manager, Mr Wang appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 25 March 2021. The tenant gave 28 days’ notice, ending the tenancy on 21 July 2024. The landlord’s claim was filed on 23 August 2024.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Cleaning, carpet cleaning, missing chattels, key lock replacement, rubbish removal.
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to: i. Leave the grounds in a reasonable condition ($220.00), ii. Leave the interior of the property reasonably clean ($190.00), iii. Leave the carpet reasonably clean ($300.00), iv. Remove all rubbish (540.00), v. Replace a missing light bulb (2.00), vi. Return the heat pump remote in a working condition ($138.00) vii. Return the keys provided ($250.50).
The compensation sought is shown in brackets.
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) of the Act.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the property at the commencement and the end of the tenancy. I have been able to make direct before and after comparisons. The landlord has also produced evidence confirming the keys given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
Mr Wang states that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant left their dog and cat inside for four days. The cat managed to escape through a broken window. However, the dog remained inside. Mr Wang believes the dog was later rescued by the SPCA. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the carpet at the end was stained and dirty. The landlord attempted to clean it, but ultimately it required replacing.
The photographs show that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, which is shown piled against the fence.
The lawns have not been left in the same reasonable condition they were at the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Wang states that before vacating, the tenant had attempted to burn some of their possessions, and in doing so had damaged the lawn.
No cleaning was done by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The bathroom is particularly unclean. The tenant did not return the keys. There is a missing light bulb in the lounge. The front cover over the heat pump remote is missing, and the unit damaged.
I am satisfied the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property, and the carpet reasonably clean, and the lawns reasonably tidy. That they have also failed to remove all rubbish, return the keys provided, and to leave all chattels in a working condition.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to: i. Walls and doors ($7,406.00), ii. The carpet ($850.00), iii. Dishwasher ($1,346.99), iv. Power socket ($103.50), v. Toilet seat ($100.00), vi. Windows ($814.43),
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As stated, the landlord has provided photographs enabling the Tribunal to make an accurate before and after comparison. I have viewed the photographs and heard from Mr Wang. In each case, I am satisfied to the required standard that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. Walls and doors
Seven internal doors have holes, some have been partially repaired. Some doors have multiple holes.
The three bedrooms each have damage to walls, some of which has been partially repaired. Some holes were too large to be patched, requiring the entire section of jib to be replaced. The lounge and hallway walls also have damage, including scratches likely caused by the dog.
The landlord has insurance for damage caused carelessly, with an excess of $850.00 per claim. However, due to the nature and extent of the damage, I find that it was likely caused intentionally.
Mr Wang states that the property was built in the 1970’s. The décor, if not original, is at least 40 years old. Having discussed the matter with Mr Wang, I reduce the amount claimed by 15% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $5,924.00.
Mr Wang states that after the tenancy ended someone unlawfully entered the property and caused further damage. Mr Wang states the perpetrators were apprehended, and that reparation is being sought. The damage caused is over and above the claims made in this application, which were identified prior to the burglary. Carpet
The property has carpet in each of the three bedrooms, the hallway, and the lounge. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre tenancy photographs show that it was in a good condition. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was damaged. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted. The carpet was replaced. The landlord is seeking one excess of $850.00. Carpet in rental properties has an estimated useful lifespan of around 10 years. However, in the circumstances no deduction is made for betterment or depreciation and the amount claimed is awarded. Dishwasher
Mr Wang states that at the end of tenancy inspection he discovered the front of the oven door had been removed and was leaning against a nearby wall. Mr Wang states that he then discovered that the heat pump remote had been damaged, and that the tenant had been unable to operate the heat pump. Mr Wang states the landlord had not been informed. Had they been advised they would have provided a replacement. Mr Wang states that the tenant removed the oven door to use the oven as a heat source. The oven is next to the dishwasher. The heat escaping the oven caused the front of the dishwasher to melt. The damage is confirmed in the photographs. The oven door was re installed. The dishwasher was damaged beyond repair.
In my view it was a virtual certainty that removing the oven door would cause damage to the dishwasher next to it. The amount claimed to replace the dishwasher is $1,346.99. Dishwashers in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of around 7 years. Mr Wang believes the dishwasher was approximately 3 – 4 years old and was in a good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. This is confirmed by the photographs. I therefore reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $1,010.24. Power socket
The photographs show that a power socket on the lounge wall has been removed. The landlord is claiming $103.50 to replace the socket. This is awarded. Toilet seat
The toilet seat is shown leaning against the wall in the toilet. Mr Wang states the seat had been broken at the hinges. The seat is plastic. A toilet seat in a rental property has an estimated useful lifespan of around 4 years. I reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and award the landlord $67.50. Windows
Four windows and a glass pane in the back door were damaged. Having viewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. At the commencement of the tenancy the windows were in a reasonable condition. The amount claimed to replace the windows is awarded. Costs
Because Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Chenghui Liao has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Although they are entitled to name suppression the landlord does not seek it.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4982869 — net $8,759.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$220.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs to walls and doors	$5,924.80	Repairs to walls and doors
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace damaged carpet	$850.00	Replace damaged carpet
Window repairs	$814.43	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$250.50	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$540.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: toilet seat	$67.50	Repairs: toilet seat
Replace furnishings: dishwasher	$1,010.24	Replace furnishings: dishwasher
Cleaning	$190.00	Cleaning
Light bulb	$2.00	Light bulb
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: socket in lounge	$103.90	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: socket in lounge
Repairs: kitchen cabinetry	$241.50	Repairs: kitchen cabinetry
Replace furnishings: heat pump remote	$138.00	Replace furnishings: heat pump remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,759.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,759.37

Order

Geyser Cashmore must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Chenghui Liao $ 8,759.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5948218-004) to Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Chenghui Liao immediately.

Reasons

The Property Manager, Mr Wang appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 25 March 2021. The tenant gave 28 days’ notice, ending the tenancy on 21 July 2024. The landlord’s claim was filed on 23 August 2024.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Cleaning, carpet cleaning, missing chattels, key lock replacement, rubbish removal.
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to: i. Leave the grounds in a reasonable condition ($220.00), ii. Leave the interior of the property reasonably clean ($190.00), iii. Leave the carpet reasonably clean ($300.00), iv. Remove all rubbish (540.00), v. Replace a missing light bulb (2.00), vi. Return the heat pump remote in a working condition ($138.00) vii. Return the keys provided ($250.50).
The compensation sought is shown in brackets.
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) of the Act.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the property at the commencement and the end of the tenancy. I have been able to make direct before and after comparisons. The landlord has also produced evidence confirming the keys given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
Mr Wang states that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant left their dog and cat inside for four days. The cat managed to escape through a broken window. However, the dog remained inside. Mr Wang believes the dog was later rescued by the SPCA. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the carpet at the end was stained and dirty. The landlord attempted to clean it, but ultimately it required replacing.
The photographs show that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, which is shown piled against the fence.
The lawns have not been left in the same reasonable condition they were at the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Wang states that before vacating, the tenant had attempted to burn some of their possessions, and in doing so had damaged the lawn.
No cleaning was done by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The bathroom is particularly unclean. The tenant did not return the keys. There is a missing light bulb in the lounge. The front cover over the heat pump remote is missing, and the unit damaged.
I am satisfied the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property, and the carpet reasonably clean, and the lawns reasonably tidy. That they have also failed to remove all rubbish, return the keys provided, and to leave all chattels in a working condition.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to: i. Walls and doors ($7,406.00), ii. The carpet ($850.00), iii. Dishwasher ($1,346.99), iv. Power socket ($103.50), v. Toilet seat ($100.00), vi. Windows ($814.43),
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As stated, the landlord has provided photographs enabling the Tribunal to make an accurate before and after comparison. I have viewed the photographs and heard from Mr Wang. In each case, I am satisfied to the required standard that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. Walls and doors
Seven internal doors have holes, some have been partially repaired. Some doors have multiple holes.
The three bedrooms each have damage to walls, some of which has been partially repaired. Some holes were too large to be patched, requiring the entire section of jib to be replaced. The lounge and hallway walls also have damage, including scratches likely caused by the dog.
The landlord has insurance for damage caused carelessly, with an excess of $850.00 per claim. However, due to the nature and extent of the damage, I find that it was likely caused intentionally.
Mr Wang states that the property was built in the 1970’s. The décor, if not original, is at least 40 years old. Having discussed the matter with Mr Wang, I reduce the amount claimed by 15% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $5,924.00.
Mr Wang states that after the tenancy ended someone unlawfully entered the property and caused further damage. Mr Wang states the perpetrators were apprehended, and that reparation is being sought. The damage caused is over and above the claims made in this application, which were identified prior to the burglary. Carpet
The property has carpet in each of the three bedrooms, the hallway, and the lounge. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre tenancy photographs show that it was in a good condition. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was damaged. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted. The carpet was replaced. The landlord is seeking one excess of $850.00. Carpet in rental properties has an estimated useful lifespan of around 10 years. However, in the circumstances no deduction is made for betterment or depreciation and the amount claimed is awarded. Dishwasher
Mr Wang states that at the end of tenancy inspection he discovered the front of the oven door had been removed and was leaning against a nearby wall. Mr Wang states that he then discovered that the heat pump remote had been damaged, and that the tenant had been unable to operate the heat pump. Mr Wang states the landlord had not been informed. Had they been advised they would have provided a replacement. Mr Wang states that the tenant removed the oven door to use the oven as a heat source. The oven is next to the dishwasher. The heat escaping the oven caused the front of the dishwasher to melt. The damage is confirmed in the photographs. The oven door was re installed. The dishwasher was damaged beyond repair.
In my view it was a virtual certainty that removing the oven door would cause damage to the dishwasher next to it. The amount claimed to replace the dishwasher is $1,346.99. Dishwashers in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of around 7 years. Mr Wang believes the dishwasher was approximately 3 – 4 years old and was in a good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. This is confirmed by the photographs. I therefore reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $1,010.24. Power socket
The photographs show that a power socket on the lounge wall has been removed. The landlord is claiming $103.50 to replace the socket. This is awarded. Toilet seat
The toilet seat is shown leaning against the wall in the toilet. Mr Wang states the seat had been broken at the hinges. The seat is plastic. A toilet seat in a rental property has an estimated useful lifespan of around 4 years. I reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and award the landlord $67.50. Windows
Four windows and a glass pane in the back door were damaged. Having viewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. At the commencement of the tenancy the windows were in a reasonable condition. The amount claimed to replace the windows is awarded. Costs
Because Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Chenghui Liao has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Although they are entitled to name suppression the landlord does not seek it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982869 — Property damage at 9 Beech Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982869 — Property damage at 9 Beech Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions