What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5086368?

The tribunal order states: Kanisha Rangimaria Maihi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5086368?

Lawns and Garden Work: $96.45 awarded to landlord; Reglaze Living Room Window: $779.67 awarded to landlord; patch and stop 4 holes in living roo…: $286.56 awarded to landlord; patch and stop holes x 4 in bedroom…: $286.56 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $202.94 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Rail: $65.33 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $822.99 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hires X 3: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5086368?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5086368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587369-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5086368?

The tribunal order states: Kanisha Rangimaria Maihi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5086368?

Lawns and Garden Work: $96.45 awarded to landlord; Reglaze Living Room Window: $779.67 awarded to landlord; patch and stop 4 holes in living roo…: $286.56 awarded to landlord; patch and stop holes x 4 in bedroom…: $286.56 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote: $202.94 awarded to landlord; Replace Wardrobe Rail: $65.33 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $822.99 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hires X 3: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5086368?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5086368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587369-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 4 Alderson Road, Fairview Downs, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5086368 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5086368 — net $3,590.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Skip bin hires x 3	$1,050.00	Skip bin hires x 3
Reglaze living room window	$779.67	Reglaze living room window
Replace heat pump remote	$202.94	Replace heat pump remote
Rubbish removal: exterior and interior	$822.99	Rubbish removal: exterior and interior
Repairs: patch and stop holes x 4 in bedroom 4	$286.56	Repairs: patch and stop holes x 4 in bedroom 4
Repairs: patch and stop 4 holes in living room	$286.56	Repairs: patch and stop 4 holes in living room
Replace wardrobe rail	$65.33	Replace wardrobe rail
Lawns and Garden work: mow lawns	$96.45	Lawns and Garden work: mow lawns
Net award	$3,590.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,590.50

Order

Kanisha Rangimaria Maihi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,590.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Thompson-Wise, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 993, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew claims to reglaze broken windows, reglaze a lounge window, to replace a towel rail and to replace a cabinet drawer and cupboard.

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. Rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided copies of an Ingoing Inspection Report dated 10 July 2019 and an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 10 October 2024, both with photographs of the property.
The landlord showed there was rubbish left both inside the property and outside. There was significant rubbish left in the outside shed, and other items left outside the house, as well as a number of rubbish items and bunk beds that had to be removed and disposed of by the landlord. The landlord claimed $656.48 to remove and dispose of the rubbish outside the property in a 4 cubic metre bin, and $166.51 to remove the inside rubbish and dispose of it in a 1 cubic metre bin. I find the landlord has proved their rubbish removal claims and that the amounts claimed are reasonable, given the evidence provided. As such, I award the landlord a total of $822.99 to remove and dispose of rubbish inside and outside of the property. Lawns
The landlord said the tenant did not mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy and provided photographs showing the lawn overgrown. The landlord claimed $96.45 for mowing the lawns at the property, which I find is reasonable given the evidence. So I award $96.45 to the landlord for mowing the lawns. Skip bins hire
The landlord said that, during the tenancy, at the tenant’s request, and understood by the parties to be at the tenant’s cost, they hired and provided 9 cubic metre skip bins on three occasions – on 15 May 2021, on 9 October 2022 and on 10 August 2023 – on behalf of the tenant for her to clear her excess rubbish and goods, and she did not pay the landlord for them. The landlord provided work order slips confirming the 3 skip hires and had agreed with the tenant to charge her $350.00 for each skip hire, which was lower than the actual cost. I find the landlord has proved this claim and so award the landlord a total of $1,050.00 for 3 skip hires on behalf of the tenant. Heat pump remote
The landlord said the tenant also requested a replacement heat pump remote during the tenancy, indicating that her children had lost it, and said she would pay for the replacement. The landlord provided a new heat pump remote at a cost of $202.94 but said the tenant did not pay them for this. The landlord has proved this claim, with a work order slip confirming the replacement remote ordered and the amount claimed. Therefore, I award the landlord $202.94 to replace the heat pump remote.
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.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Reglaze living room window a. The living room window was broken by the tenant’s children and had to be reglazed during the tenancy. The landlord said the tenant had agreed to pay for this repair. The landlord said the window replacement was for double-glazed windows, which had been there before, so it was a like-for- like repair. This occurred on 18 March 2024 according to the landlord. I find this to be likely careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. b. The landlord claimed $779.67 to reglaze the window, which I find to be reasonable given the evidence provided. The market rent for the premises in the Tenancy Agreement is $376.00 per week, with an income-related assessed rent of $113.00 per week, which was the rent paid until the end of the tenancy. As such, the amount claimed by the landlord of $779.67 to reglaze the window does not exceed the cap in section 49B(3)(a)(i) RTA. I do not consider depreciation as only the window was replaced on a like-for- like basis, not the entire window frame or structure. Therefore, I award the landlord $779.67 to reglaze the living room window. Wardrobe rail c. The landlord said a wardrobe rail was missing from a bedroom wardrobe at the end of the tenancy. The landlord pointed to a photograph of the wardrobe rail present during the Ingoing Inspection Report and a photograph of the wardrobe with its rail missing at the end of the tenancy. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant and so the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacement. d. The landlord claimed $65.33 to replace the wardrobe rail and confirmed a work order in this amount for the rail. I find this to be a reasonable cost, given the evidence. e. 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. f. The landlord said the wardrobe rail came with the property, which was a newer build around 2015. So, the wardrobe rail was likely around 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. g. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of a wardrobe in a rental property is around 15 years. As such, I deduct the $65.33 paid to replace the wardrobe rail by 60% for depreciation to an award of $26.14. Holes in the walls h. The landlord claimed the tenant had caused 4 holes in the walls in bedroom 4 and provided photographs showing the damage. The landlord claimed $286.56 to patch and stop these holes. There was no painting claimed. I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part and so the tenant is liable for the full repair cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. I find the cost claimed by the landlord to be reasonable for this repair and so award the landlord $286.56 to patch and stop 4 holes in bedroom 4. i. The landlord also claimed the tenant had caused a further 4 holes in the living room walls and provided photographs showing this damage. I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part and so the tenant is liable for the full repair cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The landlord claimed $286.56 to patch and stop these holes, which I find reasonable given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $286.56 to patch and stop the 4 holes caused in the living room walls. As there was no painting involved in any of the patching and stopping of all holes in bedroom 4 and in the living room, I do not consider depreciation in either of these claims. j. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5086368 — net $3,590.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Skip bin hires x 3	$1,050.00	Skip bin hires x 3
Reglaze living room window	$779.67	Reglaze living room window
Replace heat pump remote	$202.94	Replace heat pump remote
Rubbish removal: exterior and interior	$822.99	Rubbish removal: exterior and interior
Repairs: patch and stop holes x 4 in bedroom 4	$286.56	Repairs: patch and stop holes x 4 in bedroom 4
Repairs: patch and stop 4 holes in living room	$286.56	Repairs: patch and stop 4 holes in living room
Replace wardrobe rail	$65.33	Replace wardrobe rail
Lawns and Garden work: mow lawns	$96.45	Lawns and Garden work: mow lawns
Net award	$3,590.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,590.50

Order

Kanisha Rangimaria Maihi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,590.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Thompson-Wise, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 993, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew claims to reglaze broken windows, reglaze a lounge window, to replace a towel rail and to replace a cabinet drawer and cupboard.

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. Rubbish removal
The landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided copies of an Ingoing Inspection Report dated 10 July 2019 and an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 10 October 2024, both with photographs of the property.
The landlord showed there was rubbish left both inside the property and outside. There was significant rubbish left in the outside shed, and other items left outside the house, as well as a number of rubbish items and bunk beds that had to be removed and disposed of by the landlord. The landlord claimed $656.48 to remove and dispose of the rubbish outside the property in a 4 cubic metre bin, and $166.51 to remove the inside rubbish and dispose of it in a 1 cubic metre bin. I find the landlord has proved their rubbish removal claims and that the amounts claimed are reasonable, given the evidence provided. As such, I award the landlord a total of $822.99 to remove and dispose of rubbish inside and outside of the property. Lawns
The landlord said the tenant did not mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy and provided photographs showing the lawn overgrown. The landlord claimed $96.45 for mowing the lawns at the property, which I find is reasonable given the evidence. So I award $96.45 to the landlord for mowing the lawns. Skip bins hire
The landlord said that, during the tenancy, at the tenant’s request, and understood by the parties to be at the tenant’s cost, they hired and provided 9 cubic metre skip bins on three occasions – on 15 May 2021, on 9 October 2022 and on 10 August 2023 – on behalf of the tenant for her to clear her excess rubbish and goods, and she did not pay the landlord for them. The landlord provided work order slips confirming the 3 skip hires and had agreed with the tenant to charge her $350.00 for each skip hire, which was lower than the actual cost. I find the landlord has proved this claim and so award the landlord a total of $1,050.00 for 3 skip hires on behalf of the tenant. Heat pump remote
The landlord said the tenant also requested a replacement heat pump remote during the tenancy, indicating that her children had lost it, and said she would pay for the replacement. The landlord provided a new heat pump remote at a cost of $202.94 but said the tenant did not pay them for this. The landlord has proved this claim, with a work order slip confirming the replacement remote ordered and the amount claimed. Therefore, I award the landlord $202.94 to replace the heat pump remote.
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.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Reglaze living room window a. The living room window was broken by the tenant’s children and had to be reglazed during the tenancy. The landlord said the tenant had agreed to pay for this repair. The landlord said the window replacement was for double-glazed windows, which had been there before, so it was a like-for- like repair. This occurred on 18 March 2024 according to the landlord. I find this to be likely careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. b. The landlord claimed $779.67 to reglaze the window, which I find to be reasonable given the evidence provided. The market rent for the premises in the Tenancy Agreement is $376.00 per week, with an income-related assessed rent of $113.00 per week, which was the rent paid until the end of the tenancy. As such, the amount claimed by the landlord of $779.67 to reglaze the window does not exceed the cap in section 49B(3)(a)(i) RTA. I do not consider depreciation as only the window was replaced on a like-for- like basis, not the entire window frame or structure. Therefore, I award the landlord $779.67 to reglaze the living room window. Wardrobe rail c. The landlord said a wardrobe rail was missing from a bedroom wardrobe at the end of the tenancy. The landlord pointed to a photograph of the wardrobe rail present during the Ingoing Inspection Report and a photograph of the wardrobe with its rail missing at the end of the tenancy. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant and so the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacement. d. The landlord claimed $65.33 to replace the wardrobe rail and confirmed a work order in this amount for the rail. I find this to be a reasonable cost, given the evidence. e. 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. f. The landlord said the wardrobe rail came with the property, which was a newer build around 2015. So, the wardrobe rail was likely around 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. g. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of a wardrobe in a rental property is around 15 years. As such, I deduct the $65.33 paid to replace the wardrobe rail by 60% for depreciation to an award of $26.14. Holes in the walls h. The landlord claimed the tenant had caused 4 holes in the walls in bedroom 4 and provided photographs showing the damage. The landlord claimed $286.56 to patch and stop these holes. There was no painting claimed. I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part and so the tenant is liable for the full repair cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. I find the cost claimed by the landlord to be reasonable for this repair and so award the landlord $286.56 to patch and stop 4 holes in bedroom 4. i. The landlord also claimed the tenant had caused a further 4 holes in the living room walls and provided photographs showing this damage. I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part and so the tenant is liable for the full repair cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The landlord claimed $286.56 to patch and stop these holes, which I find reasonable given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $286.56 to patch and stop the 4 holes caused in the living room walls. As there was no painting involved in any of the patching and stopping of all holes in bedroom 4 and in the living room, I do not consider depreciation in either of these claims. j. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5086368 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 4 Alderson Road, Fairview Downs, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5086368 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 4 Alderson Road, Fairview Downs, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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