What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048010?

The tribunal order states: Renee Bower must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,425.34

How much money was awarded in case 5048010?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.34 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $825.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048010?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11390517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048010?

The tribunal order states: Renee Bower must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,425.34

How much money was awarded in case 5048010?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.34 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $825.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048010?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11390517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

57 Caldwell Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048010 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048010 — net $1,425.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs to front door – safety glass panel	$236.34	Window repairs to front door – safety glass panel
Rubbish removal	$825.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,425.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,425.34

Order

Renee Bower must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,425.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $196.00 (3601727-004) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Rea, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 412, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the rent arrears claim, as an earlier order was made relating to rent arrears, and made an oral application for refund of the bond in full.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal
The landlord provided an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 3 September 2024, with photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show extensive rubbish strewn throughout the interior and exterior of the property, particularly the outside of the property on the grass, outside the front door, under the house and inside a shed, which included old toys, old clothes, pallets, rubbish bags, as well as other rubbish piled up inside the house.
The landlord initially claimed $1,148.84 for rubbish removal, but reduced their rubbish removal claim at the hearing to $825.00. The landlord said this cost involved getting a 9 cubic metre skip bin @ $475.00, and 2 x staff labour hours for 5 hours each (total 10 hours) @ $35.00/hour per staff member, for a sub- total of $350.00. The labour cost added to the skip bin cost of $475.00, brought the total claimed to $825.00. Given the evidence provided, including the photographs of the extensive rubbish left at the property, I find this to be a reasonable cost to remove the rubbish and award this to the landlord. Cleaning
The landlord initially claimed $739.68 for cleaning the whole house at the end of the tenancy, but reduced this during the hearing to $560.00, which the landlord said was made up of 2 cleaning staff doing 8 hours each @ $35.00/hour each. The landlord highlighted the photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report which showed dirty kitchen cupboards and stove, dirty windows and windowsills, dirty sink and kitchen drawers, grimy bathroom cabinet, dirty floors after the rubbish was removed. The landlord said that usually stove cleaning is charged separately from a full clean but here that has not been charged but is included in the cleaning work completed at the end of the tenancy. Given the evidence provided by the landlord, including the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, I find the amount claimed by the landlord for cleaning to be reasonable and award the landlord $560.00 for cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved. Skip bin charge during tenancy
The landlord said the tenant owed them $300.00 for a skip bin that was provided in January 2023 during the tenancy but which she had not paid them for. The landlord did not provide any proof of this claim, such as written communication confirming the tenant’s request for a skip bin, an invoice to the tenant for this at the time in January 2023, or a statement detailing the total cost of the skip bin and any payments made by the tenant towards this. Given this, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim.

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. Broken glass door panel
The landlord said the tenant broke a glass panel in the front door and provided a photograph of this. Given the photograph of the broken glass panel on the front door, with the safety glass being completely removed and the panel boarded up, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacement less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.
As the landlord is not replacing the front door but is just repairing the glass in the door panel, I do not consider depreciation. I find the cost claimed by the landlord to repair the safety glass panel, of $236.34 to be reasonable, given the evidence, and award this to 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. Refund of bond
The landlord made an oral application for refund of the bond during the hearing. I note that the landlord provided a letter they sent to the tenant dated 18 October 2024 setting out the claims they are making for cleaning, rubbish removal and glass repair, as well as for the $300.00 claimed for a charge during the tenancy. In this letter, the landlord indicated to the tenant that they intended to ask the Bond Centre for the full bond to be paid to them to offset their claims. As such, I find the landlord indicated their intention to seek payment of the full bond prior to filing the application and so I allow the landlord’s oral application for refund of the bond. Given the awards of the other items claimed, it is appropriate that the landlord be awarded the full bond of $196.00.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $196.00 (3601727-004) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048010 — net $1,425.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs to front door – safety glass panel	$236.34	Window repairs to front door – safety glass panel
Rubbish removal	$825.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,425.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,425.34

Order

Renee Bower must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,425.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $196.00 (3601727-004) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Rea, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 412, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the rent arrears claim, as an earlier order was made relating to rent arrears, and made an oral application for refund of the bond in full.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish removal
The landlord provided an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 3 September 2024, with photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photographs show extensive rubbish strewn throughout the interior and exterior of the property, particularly the outside of the property on the grass, outside the front door, under the house and inside a shed, which included old toys, old clothes, pallets, rubbish bags, as well as other rubbish piled up inside the house.
The landlord initially claimed $1,148.84 for rubbish removal, but reduced their rubbish removal claim at the hearing to $825.00. The landlord said this cost involved getting a 9 cubic metre skip bin @ $475.00, and 2 x staff labour hours for 5 hours each (total 10 hours) @ $35.00/hour per staff member, for a sub- total of $350.00. The labour cost added to the skip bin cost of $475.00, brought the total claimed to $825.00. Given the evidence provided, including the photographs of the extensive rubbish left at the property, I find this to be a reasonable cost to remove the rubbish and award this to the landlord. Cleaning
The landlord initially claimed $739.68 for cleaning the whole house at the end of the tenancy, but reduced this during the hearing to $560.00, which the landlord said was made up of 2 cleaning staff doing 8 hours each @ $35.00/hour each. The landlord highlighted the photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report which showed dirty kitchen cupboards and stove, dirty windows and windowsills, dirty sink and kitchen drawers, grimy bathroom cabinet, dirty floors after the rubbish was removed. The landlord said that usually stove cleaning is charged separately from a full clean but here that has not been charged but is included in the cleaning work completed at the end of the tenancy. Given the evidence provided by the landlord, including the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, I find the amount claimed by the landlord for cleaning to be reasonable and award the landlord $560.00 for cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved. Skip bin charge during tenancy
The landlord said the tenant owed them $300.00 for a skip bin that was provided in January 2023 during the tenancy but which she had not paid them for. The landlord did not provide any proof of this claim, such as written communication confirming the tenant’s request for a skip bin, an invoice to the tenant for this at the time in January 2023, or a statement detailing the total cost of the skip bin and any payments made by the tenant towards this. Given this, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim.

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. Broken glass door panel
The landlord said the tenant broke a glass panel in the front door and provided a photograph of this. Given the photograph of the broken glass panel on the front door, with the safety glass being completely removed and the panel boarded up, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacement less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here.
As the landlord is not replacing the front door but is just repairing the glass in the door panel, I do not consider depreciation. I find the cost claimed by the landlord to repair the safety glass panel, of $236.34 to be reasonable, given the evidence, and award this to 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. Refund of bond
The landlord made an oral application for refund of the bond during the hearing. I note that the landlord provided a letter they sent to the tenant dated 18 October 2024 setting out the claims they are making for cleaning, rubbish removal and glass repair, as well as for the $300.00 claimed for a charge during the tenancy. In this letter, the landlord indicated to the tenant that they intended to ask the Bond Centre for the full bond to be paid to them to offset their claims. As such, I find the landlord indicated their intention to seek payment of the full bond prior to filing the application and so I allow the landlord’s oral application for refund of the bond. Given the awards of the other items claimed, it is appropriate that the landlord be awarded the full bond of $196.00.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $196.00 (3601727-004) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048010 — Cleanliness at 57 Caldwell Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048010 — Cleanliness at 57 Caldwell Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions