What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5093432?

The tribunal order states: Annie Norwell Ai'i and Viiga Milovale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and

How much money was awarded in case 5093432?

Property Damage: $1,776.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,148.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093432?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11685424-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5093432?

The tribunal order states: Annie Norwell Ai'i and Viiga Milovale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and

How much money was awarded in case 5093432?

Property Damage: $1,776.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,148.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093432?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11685424-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Rienzo Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093432 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093432 — net $2,925.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,148.84	Rubbish removal
Carpet replacement (depreciated	$1,776.71	Carpet replacement (depreciated
Net award	$2,925.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,925.55

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr Gent. The calls made to the mobile numbers provided for the tenants went unaswered. One number went to voicemail and the other number would not connect. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.

This was a fairly long tenancy which began on 13 August 2019 and ended on 29 October 2024. No bond was paid at the outset and there is currently no bond held by the Bond Centre.

The landlord has applied for compensation for rubbish removal and damage following 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy. At that stage the property appears to be in good condition and newly renovated.

The landlord produced photos from the end of the tenancy showing a large amount or rubbish left behind including couches, boxes and bags of rubbish, miscellaneous items and a damaged garden shed.

The landlord produced their internal invoice for rubbish removal (which is calculated on a cubic metre basis) in the amount of $1,148.84. I consider this amount to be reasonable based on the amount of rubbish left behind. This claim 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. Previous charges

In the application the landlord had claimed the sum of $222 for previous damage but withdrew this claim at the hearing. Carpet

The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy which show the carpet to be in new or very near new condition.

The landlord produced photos at the end of the tenancy which show the carpet in all three bedrooms, the upstairs living area, hallway and the stairs to be covered in numerous stains and damaged in a number of areas.

The landlord has proved that the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,776.71 for carpet replacement. I am satisfied that replacement was necessary based on the photos provided.

In preparing the invoice the landlord has taken into account that carpet has an estimated life of eight years but is now five years old. The landlord therefore seeks 3/8 ths of the actual cost incurred.

The depreciation applied by the landlord is the same as the depreciation that would be applied by the Tribunal using the Inland Revenue Department IR265 General depreciation rates for Residential rental property chattels. There is therefore no need to apply further depreciation to the amount claimed. This claim is proved. Filing fee and name suppression

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee or an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093432 — net $2,925.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,148.84	Rubbish removal
Carpet replacement (depreciated	$1,776.71	Carpet replacement (depreciated
Net award	$2,925.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,925.55

Order

Annie Norwell Ai'i and Viiga Milovale must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $2,925.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr Gent. The calls made to the mobile numbers provided for the tenants went unaswered. One number went to voicemail and the other number would not connect. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
This was a fairly long tenancy which began on 13 August 2019 and ended on 29 October 2024. No bond was paid at the outset and there is currently no bond held by the Bond Centre.
The landlord has applied for compensation for rubbish removal and damage following 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy. At that stage the property appears to be in good condition and newly renovated.
The landlord produced photos from the end of the tenancy showing a large amount or rubbish left behind including couches, boxes and bags of rubbish, miscellaneous items and a damaged garden shed.
The landlord produced their internal invoice for rubbish removal (which is calculated on a cubic metre basis) in the amount of $1,148.84. I consider this amount to be reasonable based on the amount of rubbish left behind. This claim 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. Previous charges
In the application the landlord had claimed the sum of $222 for previous damage but withdrew this claim at the hearing. Carpet
The landlord produced photos from the start of the tenancy which show the carpet to be in new or very near new condition.
The landlord produced photos at the end of the tenancy which show the carpet in all three bedrooms, the upstairs living area, hallway and the stairs to be covered in numerous stains and damaged in a number of areas.
The landlord has proved that the damage to the carpet was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,776.71 for carpet replacement. I am satisfied that replacement was necessary based on the photos provided.
In preparing the invoice the landlord has taken into account that carpet has an estimated life of eight years but is now five years old. The landlord therefore seeks 3/8 ths of the actual cost incurred.
The depreciation applied by the landlord is the same as the depreciation that would be applied by the Tribunal using the Inland Revenue Department IR265 General depreciation rates for Residential rental property chattels. There is therefore no need to apply further depreciation to the amount claimed. This claim is proved. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee or an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093432 — Property damage at 3 Rienzo Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093432 — Property damage at 3 Rienzo Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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