What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4999269?

The tribunal order states: Marie Maketu Summer Anita Iti must pay Berrymans Property Management &

How much money was awarded in case 4999269?

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 4999269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4999269?

The tribunal order states: Marie Maketu Summer Anita Iti must pay Berrymans Property Management &

How much money was awarded in case 4999269?

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 4999269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Balmoral Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4999269 — Cleanliness

Order

Marie Maketu Summer Anita Iti must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Devon Harnett & Cameron Adam $104.06 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (5220757-014) to Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Devon Harnett & Cameron Adam immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance from the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended by agreement. The landlord provided a rent record which proves the amount owing to 18 September 2024 was $135.71.

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. See section 40(1)(e).
The tenant did not return the keys for the back door, gate or letterbox. The landlord provided photos showing that the tenant did not remove all items. The landlord communicated with the tenant and put the items out so that she could collect them. Some of her family collected perishable food items but a mattress and other items remained. The landlord claimed the cost of removal. The amounts ordered for lock replacement and rubbish removal are proven.
The lawns had been mown but not adequately. They were patchy because they had previously been allowed to grow too long and the edges had not been trimmed. They were not tidy. The amount ordered of $60 is reasonable to tidy the property.
The carpet required cleaning because the tenant had had a dog at the property, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement. In addition, the landlord produced copies of tests showing that in August 2024 a test for methamphetamine tested positive, whereas there had been no trace of methamphetamine at a test conducted in August 2023 before the tenancy began. The composite reading in August 2024 was less than 1.5 micrograms per square metre and therefore the premises were not “contaminated”, but the tenant agreed to pay for cleaning of the premises as evidenced in email correspondence produced by the landlord. This was on the basis of quotes provided by the landlord. In the email, she asked for the quote to come out of her bond.
Accordingly, the amount ordered for cleaning 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 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.
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 toilet seat had been damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Devon Harnett & Cameron Adam has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Marie Maketu Summer Anita Iti must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Devon Harnett & Cameron Adam $104.06 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (5220757-014) to Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Devon Harnett & Cameron Adam immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance from the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended by agreement. The landlord provided a rent record which proves the amount owing to 18 September 2024 was $135.71.

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. See section 40(1)(e).
The tenant did not return the keys for the back door, gate or letterbox. The landlord provided photos showing that the tenant did not remove all items. The landlord communicated with the tenant and put the items out so that she could collect them. Some of her family collected perishable food items but a mattress and other items remained. The landlord claimed the cost of removal. The amounts ordered for lock replacement and rubbish removal are proven.
The lawns had been mown but not adequately. They were patchy because they had previously been allowed to grow too long and the edges had not been trimmed. They were not tidy. The amount ordered of $60 is reasonable to tidy the property.
The carpet required cleaning because the tenant had had a dog at the property, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement. In addition, the landlord produced copies of tests showing that in August 2024 a test for methamphetamine tested positive, whereas there had been no trace of methamphetamine at a test conducted in August 2023 before the tenancy began. The composite reading in August 2024 was less than 1.5 micrograms per square metre and therefore the premises were not “contaminated”, but the tenant agreed to pay for cleaning of the premises as evidenced in email correspondence produced by the landlord. This was on the basis of quotes provided by the landlord. In the email, she asked for the quote to come out of her bond.
Accordingly, the amount ordered for cleaning 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 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.
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 toilet seat had been damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Devon Harnett & Cameron Adam has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999269 — Cleanliness at 33 Balmoral Street, Levin, Levin 5510

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999269 — Cleanliness at 33 Balmoral Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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