How much money was awarded in case 4994988?

Cleaning: $449.65 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $689.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $239.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $214.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $3,668.39 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $119.49 awarded to landlord; Tenant Credits: $1,349.52 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11208968-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4994988?

Cleaning: $449.65 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $689.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $239.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $214.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $3,668.39 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $119.49 awarded to landlord; Tenant Credits: $1,349.52 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11208968-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2B Church Street, Hikurangi, Hikurangi 0114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994988 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994988?

The tribunal order states: Jubilee Tennessee Baker and Maihi Tewhata-Ashby must pay Nfinite Solutions

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994988 — net $2,078.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace heat pump remote	$119.49		Replace heat pump remote
Replace carpet	$3,668.39		Replace carpet
Cleaning	$449.65		7. The amount claimed for cleaning is proven and is fair and reasonable.
Repairs	$689.00		Repairs
Lock/key replacement	$239.50		Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$214.50		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Tenant credits		$1,349.52	Tenant credits
Total award	$5,407.53	$1,349.52
Net award	$2,078.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,078.01

Jubilee Tennessee Baker and Maihi Tewhata-Ashby must pay Nfinite Solutions Limited t/as Infinity Property Management (as agent for Pwg Properties Ltd) $2,078.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (5632520-003) to Nfinite Solutions Limited t/as Infinity Property Management immediately.

Reasons

The landlord accepted the tenants’ surrender of the tenancy, and the tenancy ended on 7 July 2024.

The landlord’s application seeks cleaning, change of locks, and repair costs.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 11 December 2024. Ms Palmer represented the landlord at the hearing. Neither tenant attended the hearing.

The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenants. 1

At the end of a tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys. 2

Ms Palmer provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The premises were not reasonably clean and tidy.

The amount claimed for cleaning is proven and is fair and reasonable.

The tenants did not return the keys.

The cost of changing the locks is proven.

Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy. 3

Pets were not permitted per the terms of the tenancy agreement.

At an inspection in May 2024, Ms Palmer found that the tenants had two dogs at the property. There was noticeable staining on the carpet at that time.

Ms Palmer attempted to address this issue by having the tenants sign a pet agreement and pay $30 per week towards replacement of the carpet.

The landlord’s claim for damages is comprised of: a. Replacement of the carpet. b. Removal of a shelf and a room divider installed by the tenants. c. Replacement of several damaged curtains. d. Repairs to a bedroom door and cupboard door. e. Apply pigment sealer and paint sunroom floor. f. Re-glaze broken window in sunroom.

Much of this damage relates to the tenants’ dogs.

New carpet was laid shortly before the start of this tenancy in September 2022. 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) RTA 3 Section 49B(1)(b) RTA

Ms Palmer’s photographs show that the carpet was badly stained at the end of this tenancy, less than two years later. Many of the stains are pet stains, but there are also coloured stains that appear to be spilled drinks.

The extent of staining is such that it cannot be remedied by cleaning. The only option is to replace the carpet.

The cost if replacing the carpet is $3,668.39 per a quote from Flooring Design. Given that the carpet was less than two years old, and having regard to the fact that the landlord must now bear a significant and unexpected capital cost, I will not apply any depreciation to the new replacement cost claimed.

The landlord has proven that there was damage to the carpet beyond fair wear and tear during the period of the tenancy. The tenants are liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.

Ms Baker left the property in difficult circumstances, and moved to a different part of the country. Mr Maihi was also unable to return to the property.

The tenants left the dogs in the sunroom.

Ms Baker made all reasonable efforts to contact the tenants about the dogs.

On 3 July 2024, the police forced entry into the sunroom, breaking a glass pane to do so, to get the dogs out. The dogs were taken to the SPCA.

This is damage to the property that occurred during the tenancy. The damage was not caused by the tenants or by someone who was at the premises with the tenants’ consent. 4

However my finding is that it is appropriate for the tenants to pay the cost of re- glazing the broken pane having regard to the following factors: a. The tenants were not permitted to have dogs at the property. b. The tenants failed to make appropriate arrangements for the dogs when they left the premises. c. Although the tenants could not have anticipated that the police would become involved and would break a pane to gain entry, it was reasonably foreseeable that their failure to make suitable arrangements for the dogs would create cost and inconvenience for the landlord. d. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord and the police to take prompt action given that the dogs were left locked inside the sunroom.

It was necessary to treat, seal, and paint the sunroom floor because of the dogs being trapped in there. 4 Section 41 RTA

The other minor repairs, removal of tenant alterations, and replacement of damaged curtains, are proven.

The tenants had an amount of rent in credit and also had a credit for water payments. Those credits can be applied to the amounts that the tenants owe for repairs, cleaning, etc, per the table above.

The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 5

Ms Baker and Mr Tewhata-Ashby were joint tenants. This means that they liable together and separately for any damages or costs.

The amount owed by the tenants exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994988 — net $2,078.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace heat pump remote	$119.49		Replace heat pump remote
Replace carpet	$3,668.39		Replace carpet
Cleaning	$449.65		7. The amount claimed for cleaning is proven and is fair and reasonable.
Repairs	$689.00		Repairs
Lock/key replacement	$239.50		Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$214.50		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Tenant credits		$1,349.52	Tenant credits
Total award	$5,407.53	$1,349.52
Net award	$2,078.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,078.01

Order

Jubilee Tennessee Baker and Maihi Tewhata-Ashby must pay Nfinite Solutions Limited t/as Infinity Property Management (as agent for Pwg Properties Ltd) $2,078.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (5632520-003) to Nfinite Solutions Limited t/as Infinity Property Management immediately.

Reasons

The landlord accepted the tenants’ surrender of the tenancy, and the tenancy ended on 7 July 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks cleaning, change of locks, and repair costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 11 December 2024. Ms Palmer represented the landlord at the hearing. Neither tenant attended the hearing.
The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenants. 1
At the end of a tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys. 2
Ms Palmer provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The premises were not reasonably clean and tidy.
The amount claimed for cleaning is proven and is fair and reasonable.
The tenants did not return the keys.
The cost of changing the locks is proven.
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy. 3
Pets were not permitted per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
At an inspection in May 2024, Ms Palmer found that the tenants had two dogs at the property. There was noticeable staining on the carpet at that time.
Ms Palmer attempted to address this issue by having the tenants sign a pet agreement and pay $30 per week towards replacement of the carpet.
The landlord’s claim for damages is comprised of: a. Replacement of the carpet. b. Removal of a shelf and a room divider installed by the tenants. c. Replacement of several damaged curtains. d. Repairs to a bedroom door and cupboard door. e. Apply pigment sealer and paint sunroom floor. f. Re-glaze broken window in sunroom.
Much of this damage relates to the tenants’ dogs.
New carpet was laid shortly before the start of this tenancy in September 2022. 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) & (iv) RTA 3 Section 49B(1)(b) RTA
Ms Palmer’s photographs show that the carpet was badly stained at the end of this tenancy, less than two years later. Many of the stains are pet stains, but there are also coloured stains that appear to be spilled drinks.
The extent of staining is such that it cannot be remedied by cleaning. The only option is to replace the carpet.
The cost if replacing the carpet is $3,668.39 per a quote from Flooring Design. Given that the carpet was less than two years old, and having regard to the fact that the landlord must now bear a significant and unexpected capital cost, I will not apply any depreciation to the new replacement cost claimed.
The landlord has proven that there was damage to the carpet beyond fair wear and tear during the period of the tenancy. The tenants are liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.
Ms Baker left the property in difficult circumstances, and moved to a different part of the country. Mr Maihi was also unable to return to the property.
The tenants left the dogs in the sunroom.
Ms Baker made all reasonable efforts to contact the tenants about the dogs.
On 3 July 2024, the police forced entry into the sunroom, breaking a glass pane to do so, to get the dogs out. The dogs were taken to the SPCA.
This is damage to the property that occurred during the tenancy. The damage was not caused by the tenants or by someone who was at the premises with the tenants’ consent. 4
However my finding is that it is appropriate for the tenants to pay the cost of re- glazing the broken pane having regard to the following factors: a. The tenants were not permitted to have dogs at the property. b. The tenants failed to make appropriate arrangements for the dogs when they left the premises. c. Although the tenants could not have anticipated that the police would become involved and would break a pane to gain entry, it was reasonably foreseeable that their failure to make suitable arrangements for the dogs would create cost and inconvenience for the landlord. d. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord and the police to take prompt action given that the dogs were left locked inside the sunroom.
It was necessary to treat, seal, and paint the sunroom floor because of the dogs being trapped in there. 4 Section 41 RTA
The other minor repairs, removal of tenant alterations, and replacement of damaged curtains, are proven.
The tenants had an amount of rent in credit and also had a credit for water payments. Those credits can be applied to the amounts that the tenants owe for repairs, cleaning, etc, per the table above.
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 5
Ms Baker and Mr Tewhata-Ashby were joint tenants. This means that they liable together and separately for any damages or costs.
The amount owed by the tenants exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994988 — Property damage at 2B Church Street, Hikurangi, Hikurangi 0114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994988 — Property damage at 2B Church Street, Hikurangi, Hikurangi 0114

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