What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5050468?

The tribunal order states: Reihana Pakinga must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) -

How much money was awarded in case 5050468?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $422.72 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $633.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $129.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,083.40 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11286058-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5050468?

The tribunal order states: Reihana Pakinga must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) -

How much money was awarded in case 5050468?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $422.72 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $633.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $129.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,083.40 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11286058-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

87 North Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5050468 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050468 — net $4,021.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 04 November 2024	$3,050.00	Rent arrears to 04 November 2024
Cleaning	$422.72	Cleaning
Cleaning laundry	$218.50	Cleaning laundry
Carpet Cleaning	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning
Garden work and rubbish removal	$633.50	Garden work and rubbish removal
Window repairs	$129.27	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$396.75	Lock/key replacement
Repairs walls	$1,083.40	Repairs walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,021.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,021.14

Order

Reihana Pakinga must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent for Damon Shelly $4,021.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5338073-004) to Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent for Damon Shelly immediately.

Reasons

Ms Denison appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 03 April 2021 and was periodic. The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 04 November 2024, although vacated on or about 28 October 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean ($854.45), ii. Failed to leave the laundry reasonably clean ($218.50), iii. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($260.00), iv. Failed to leave the grounds reasonably tidy and remove all rubbish ($633.50), v. Is responsible for a mice infestation ($300.00), vi. Failed to return the garage remote control ($395.15), vii. Is responsible for damage to a cat door ($258.54), doorknob ($25.00), wardrobe and wall in bedroom ($359.15), and other walls ($ 1,259.56).
In brackets is the compensation sought by the landlord.
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”). Rent
The tenancy ended on 04 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) of the Act.
The property consists of three bedrooms, an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge, bathroom and toilet, laundry, and a double garage.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior and the grounds of the property at the end of the tenancy. There are photographs showing the inside of the property and the grounds at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the grounds in at least the same condition there were at the commencement of the tenancy. The lawns were not mown, garden bags full of green waste and rubbish were left, along with a rotten eel and fish bodies in the garden. Household furniture including a lounge suite, table, and chest of drawers was left in the garage. The amount claimed, which includes disposal costs, is reasonable and awarded.
The landlord is claiming two hours at the rate of $40.00 per hour to clean the kitchen, oven, and rangehood, three hours for skirting boards and walls, one hour for window sills, 30 minutes for light fittings , 30 minutes to remove nails and pins from walls , 30 minutes to clean blinds , 30 minutes to vacuum and wash floors , and 30 minutes to wash the outside bins , totalling eight hours. This claim is doubled as the landlord is claiming for two people to complete the work.
While I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, there is insufficient evidence to justify 16 hours at $40.00 per hour. Based on the evidence, I consider eight hours reasonable, and I award half of the cleaning costs claimed, $422.72.
I am satisfied that the carpet was not left reasonably clean. Photograph show staining and soiling on the carpet.
The tenant did not return the key to the laundry, which is accessed via an external door. The landlord arranged for the lock to be changed and separate cleaning to be completed. I am satisfied that the laundry was not left reasonably clean. In this case I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and is awarded in full.
The landlord has produced evidence showing that the tenant was provided with a garage remote at the commencement of the tenancy. This was not returned with the keys. After leaving the property the tenant advised that they would return the remote, but this did not occur.
Regarding the claim for rodent (mice) control. The landlord has produced a photograph showing what appear to be mice droppings. The landlord states that the flap to the cat door had been damaged, allowing unrestricted access for animals, including rodents. The Tribunal must be satisfied that an act or omission of the tenant has caused the infestation. I am not satisfied this is the case. The mice droppings are limited to one corner of the kitchen bench and in the cupboard under the kitchen sink only. The claim for rodent control is declined. Damage
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.
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).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ranchslider / cat door
The landlord has produced a photograph showing that the flap on the cat door, which is in a ranch slider, is missing. The landlord replaced the entire glass panel rather than just the cat door. Although there was a cat door, the agreement prohibited pets, the tenant however kept a cat and dog.
I am satisfied the damage has occurred during the tenancy. As the tenant was not permitted to have pets, the damage was more than fair wear and tear. However, as replacing the panel has resulted in betterment, I award half of the amount claimed. Walls
The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to a bedroom doorframe and a hole in the wall. I am satisfied that this occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord engaged a contractor to repair this damage for $359.15. This is reasonable and awarded.
The landlord claims that “almost all” of the interior walls sustained minor damage requiring repairs. The landlord states the owner completed these repairs and is claiming material costs of $274.25, labour costs of $780.00 (26 hours at $30.00 per hour), and travel costs of $208.20.
Other photographs show what appear to be scratching on two walls, two screws in a wall, three holes in another wall consistent with screws being used, and part of a sticker on the ceiling. There are also photographs showing pen, paint, and what appear to be crayon marks on four other walls.
Any award for compensation made by the Tribunal must be based on the evidence. There is insufficient photographic evidence to support the claim that almost “every wall” was damaged. Accordingly, I reduce the landlord’s labour cost by half and award $390.00.
The owner resides in a city about 30 km away from the property. The landlord is seeking travel costs of $208.20 for six return trips at the rate of 50 cents per km. I reduce the claim to two return trips and award $60.00 for travel.
The total award for damage to walls and doors is $1,083.40. Costs
Because Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent for Damon Shelly has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Name suppression is not sought by the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050468 — net $4,021.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 04 November 2024	$3,050.00	Rent arrears to 04 November 2024
Cleaning	$422.72	Cleaning
Cleaning laundry	$218.50	Cleaning laundry
Carpet Cleaning	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning
Garden work and rubbish removal	$633.50	Garden work and rubbish removal
Window repairs	$129.27	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$396.75	Lock/key replacement
Repairs walls	$1,083.40	Repairs walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,021.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,021.14

Order

Reihana Pakinga must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent for Damon Shelly $4,021.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5338073-004) to Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent for Damon Shelly immediately.

Reasons

Ms Denison appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 03 April 2021 and was periodic. The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 04 November 2024, although vacated on or about 28 October 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean ($854.45), ii. Failed to leave the laundry reasonably clean ($218.50), iii. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($260.00), iv. Failed to leave the grounds reasonably tidy and remove all rubbish ($633.50), v. Is responsible for a mice infestation ($300.00), vi. Failed to return the garage remote control ($395.15), vii. Is responsible for damage to a cat door ($258.54), doorknob ($25.00), wardrobe and wall in bedroom ($359.15), and other walls ($ 1,259.56).
In brackets is the compensation sought by the landlord.
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”). Rent
The tenancy ended on 04 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) of the Act.
The property consists of three bedrooms, an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge, bathroom and toilet, laundry, and a double garage.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the interior and the grounds of the property at the end of the tenancy. There are photographs showing the inside of the property and the grounds at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the grounds in at least the same condition there were at the commencement of the tenancy. The lawns were not mown, garden bags full of green waste and rubbish were left, along with a rotten eel and fish bodies in the garden. Household furniture including a lounge suite, table, and chest of drawers was left in the garage. The amount claimed, which includes disposal costs, is reasonable and awarded.
The landlord is claiming two hours at the rate of $40.00 per hour to clean the kitchen, oven, and rangehood, three hours for skirting boards and walls, one hour for window sills, 30 minutes for light fittings , 30 minutes to remove nails and pins from walls , 30 minutes to clean blinds , 30 minutes to vacuum and wash floors , and 30 minutes to wash the outside bins , totalling eight hours. This claim is doubled as the landlord is claiming for two people to complete the work.
While I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, there is insufficient evidence to justify 16 hours at $40.00 per hour. Based on the evidence, I consider eight hours reasonable, and I award half of the cleaning costs claimed, $422.72.
I am satisfied that the carpet was not left reasonably clean. Photograph show staining and soiling on the carpet.
The tenant did not return the key to the laundry, which is accessed via an external door. The landlord arranged for the lock to be changed and separate cleaning to be completed. I am satisfied that the laundry was not left reasonably clean. In this case I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and is awarded in full.
The landlord has produced evidence showing that the tenant was provided with a garage remote at the commencement of the tenancy. This was not returned with the keys. After leaving the property the tenant advised that they would return the remote, but this did not occur.
Regarding the claim for rodent (mice) control. The landlord has produced a photograph showing what appear to be mice droppings. The landlord states that the flap to the cat door had been damaged, allowing unrestricted access for animals, including rodents. The Tribunal must be satisfied that an act or omission of the tenant has caused the infestation. I am not satisfied this is the case. The mice droppings are limited to one corner of the kitchen bench and in the cupboard under the kitchen sink only. The claim for rodent control is declined. Damage
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.
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).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ranchslider / cat door
The landlord has produced a photograph showing that the flap on the cat door, which is in a ranch slider, is missing. The landlord replaced the entire glass panel rather than just the cat door. Although there was a cat door, the agreement prohibited pets, the tenant however kept a cat and dog.
I am satisfied the damage has occurred during the tenancy. As the tenant was not permitted to have pets, the damage was more than fair wear and tear. However, as replacing the panel has resulted in betterment, I award half of the amount claimed. Walls
The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to a bedroom doorframe and a hole in the wall. I am satisfied that this occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord engaged a contractor to repair this damage for $359.15. This is reasonable and awarded.
The landlord claims that “almost all” of the interior walls sustained minor damage requiring repairs. The landlord states the owner completed these repairs and is claiming material costs of $274.25, labour costs of $780.00 (26 hours at $30.00 per hour), and travel costs of $208.20.
Other photographs show what appear to be scratching on two walls, two screws in a wall, three holes in another wall consistent with screws being used, and part of a sticker on the ceiling. There are also photographs showing pen, paint, and what appear to be crayon marks on four other walls.
Any award for compensation made by the Tribunal must be based on the evidence. There is insufficient photographic evidence to support the claim that almost “every wall” was damaged. Accordingly, I reduce the landlord’s labour cost by half and award $390.00.
The owner resides in a city about 30 km away from the property. The landlord is seeking travel costs of $208.20 for six return trips at the rate of 50 cents per km. I reduce the claim to two return trips and award $60.00 for travel.
The total award for damage to walls and doors is $1,083.40. Costs
Because Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent for Damon Shelly has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Name suppression is not sought by the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050468 — Rent arrears at 87 North Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050468 — Rent arrears at 87 North Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions