What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994649?

The tribunal order states: This order amends the Tribunal Order dated 30 January 2025 by including the

How much money was awarded in case 4994649?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994649?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11455265-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994649?

The tribunal order states: This order amends the Tribunal Order dated 30 January 2025 by including the

How much money was awarded in case 4994649?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994649?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11455265-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Rata Place, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994649 — Rent arrears

Order

This order amends the Tribunal Order dated 30 January 2025 by including the release of the bond to the landlord. In all other respects the order remains unchanged. .
Latesha Anne Tito must pay Riverstone Rentals Limited $4,575.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the Table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I record that the landlord has provided correspondence from the Bond Centre indicating that the bond had incorrectly been released to the tenant and seeking a copy of this order.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 February 2024. The tenant had failed to give notice in writing as is required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $2,147.29.

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Extensive photos were provided by the landlord of the premises and of the stove in particular.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord said that the cleaning carried out was to bring the premises to a standard where they could be relet. That is not the standard required of the tenant. I have reduced the cleaning claim to $400.00 which in my view and considering the photos provided, would have been sufficient to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The oven cleaning cost, given the very poor state of the oven, is reasonable.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The claim is reasonable given the amount of rubbish.
When the landlord entered the premises at the end of the tenancy, they discovered both fleas and German Cockroaches. Two lots of fumigation was required to eradicate the pests. The claim is reasonable.
Four curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has replaced the curtains. 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. The tenant is ordered to pay $150.00.
The amounts ordered are 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,500.00 on each and every claim.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Weatherboards at the rear of the premises were damaged. The landlord said that this occurred during the tenancy. The landlord said that some force would have been needed to cause the damage. Photos of the damage were provided. The tenant said that she did not know how the damage had been caused, but that the premises were in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Toilet seat- this had been damaged and the tenant accepted liability. Holes in lounge wall – The landlord said that there were two holes and provided photos of both. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Front gate - there was a front gate at the premises at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said that it had been removed during the tenancy and had now been replaced. The tenant said that the gate had come off during a cyclone and that it remained at the premises. No evidence was provided by the tenant to support this proposition. In those circumstances, I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The kitchen cabinet had been damaged. The hinges on both the cabinet and the bi-fold doors were damaged and needed repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Window - the landlord said that a kitchen window was broken during the tenancy. The tenant said that it was only cracked and had been in that condition at the commencement of the tenancy. In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Riverstone Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994649 — Rent arrears at 6 Rata Place, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994649 — Rent arrears at 6 Rata Place, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112

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?

Property management

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?

Property management