What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5105618?

The tribunal order states: Mark Stewart must pay Williams Property Solutions Limited $7,665.66

How much money was awarded in case 5105618?

Cleaning: $1,480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4990128 D…: $2,761.29 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $579.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,716.02 awarded to landlord; Window: $583.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $519.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105618?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11390771-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5105618?

The tribunal order states: Mark Stewart must pay Williams Property Solutions Limited $7,665.66

How much money was awarded in case 5105618?

Cleaning: $1,480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4990128 D…: $2,761.29 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $579.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,716.02 awarded to landlord; Window: $583.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $519.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105618?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11390771-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Wellesley Street, Feilding, 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5105618 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5105618 — net $7,665.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4990128 dated 08/10/2024	$2,761.29	Previous order application 4990128 dated 08/10/2024
Lock/key replacement	$579.30	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: rubbish, lawns	$1,480.00	Cleaning: rubbish, lawns
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$519.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Repairs: window	$583.05	Repairs: window
Repairs	$1,716.02	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,665.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,665.66

Order

Mark Stewart must pay Williams Property Solutions Limited $7,665.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims related to methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Although the tenant did not attend the hearing, I must still be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the amounts claimed.
The tenancy ended on 13 October 2024 as a result of a termination order.
The landlord sought reimbursement of the following expenses for which invoices and email evidence were provided: a. Lock replacement $ 579.30 b. Property “maintenance”, Cleaning, Oven clean $1970.00 c. Skip bin$ 579.30 d. Window repair$ 583.05 e. Repairs$1816.02 f. Meth test composite$ 264.50 g. Meth test full$1949.25 h. Insurance excess$ 550.00

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys See section 40(1)(e).
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.
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.
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.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had to have all locks replaced. An invoice for $579.30 was submitted. That amount is ordered.
The landlord provided copies of inspection reports at the start of the tenancy, two routine reports during the tenancy and one for the end of the tenancy. The state of the premises at the end of the tenancy was better than during the tenancy and it was evident that the tenant had made some effort to tidy the property and repair some damage.
In the photos it was evident that the tenant had left some rubbish about the property and abandoned some items of furniture. The landlord needed to hire a skip bin and pay someone to tidy the property up. The lawns had not been mown.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Easy Clean for $1970.00. This was for Property maintenance 14 hours, Cleaning 50 hours and Oven clean, $80.00.
The invoice reads: Tues 15 th October Moved all the rubbish inside the house ready for skip bin. Moved whiteware outside Wednesday 16 th October Put all rubbish in skip bin Laundry: wiped ceilings, walls, shelves. Cleaned laundry tub and cupboard Cleaned cupboard door and back door. Scrubbed and mopped floors Property maintenance Moved rubbish into skip bins from inside, outside and under the house. Weed eating and mowing lawns. Thursday 17 th October Property maintenance
The cleaning was 21 hours at $50 an hour and included wiping ceilings. The photos did not reveal a great deal of cleaning required. The photos did not show the ceilings or any dirty areas. The bath appeared clean. The landlord said that the premises smelt and no cleaning had been done. They had not been cleaned during the tenancy for some time. It was not a matter of simply wiping them or vacuuming. The tenant is required only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
However, I am not satisfied that the tenant was responsible for 21 hours of cleaning. He was not required to leave the premises in pristine condition for the next tenant. I have allowed 16 hours for cleaning, deduction $250.
The maintenance was not itemised. The landlord said it was for lawns and tidying, repair of the kitchen window, bathroom vanity and replacement of hinges. showed photos of missing door handles and broken hinges. The extent appears to be more than fair wear and tear. However, there is a further invoice for the window repair and another for items as outlined below.
The tenant is not responsible for maintenance, and the repairs in this invoice have not been listed. The landlord should be reimbursed for time spent moving rubbish and mowing lawns. I have deducted 4 hours at $60 per hour which is $240.00. In total that is a deduction of $490.
The other repairs in an invoice totalling $1816.02 from PP Whitlock were: Replace broken handles on kitchen window and bedrooms where needed Repair broken bathroom door frame by hinges Repair drawers on vanity in bathroom Rehang laundry cupboard door Put a side gate latch so it closes Repair side fence at bottom of driveway Install a new wooden handrail at front steps Install a new rotary washing line Stop leak in toilet in bathroom
The invoice included $871.65 for materials but no receipts were provided. GST was added to this.
The landlord said that the materials included about $400 for a replacement washing line, making a new vanity drawer and the new handrail. The washing line was about 3 years old.
I have reservations about the quality of the washing line. This is appears to be a fairly flimsy rotary line, but I have decided that it is more likely than not that the damage to the line was caused by the careless or intentional actions of the tenant or someone there with his permission. Although there are no receipts for materials, the amount claimed does not appear excessive.
The landlord has not proved that the actions of the tenant caused a leak in the toilet. I have therefore made a deduction of $100.00 for that.
One window and window frame were completely missing. An invoice was submitted for $583.05.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
The landlord also sought the costs of methamphetamine testing. There were no tests undertaken before the tenant moved in. Therefore that landlord has not established that the tenant is responsible for the presence of methamphetamine in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The claims for testing are therefore dismissed.
The landlord also raised the question of carpet cleaning and replacement. A quote has been obtained for the latter. Because these items were not listed in the application and documents filed, a further application will need to be made.
Clearer photographs, itemised invoices and receipts would assist the landlord in future claims.
Because Williams Property Solutions Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5105618 — net $7,665.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4990128 dated 08/10/2024	$2,761.29	Previous order application 4990128 dated 08/10/2024
Lock/key replacement	$579.30	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: rubbish, lawns	$1,480.00	Cleaning: rubbish, lawns
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$519.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Repairs: window	$583.05	Repairs: window
Repairs	$1,716.02	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,665.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,665.66

Order

Mark Stewart must pay Williams Property Solutions Limited $7,665.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims related to methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Although the tenant did not attend the hearing, I must still be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the amounts claimed.
The tenancy ended on 13 October 2024 as a result of a termination order.
The landlord sought reimbursement of the following expenses for which invoices and email evidence were provided: a. Lock replacement $ 579.30 b. Property “maintenance”, Cleaning, Oven clean $1970.00 c. Skip bin$ 579.30 d. Window repair$ 583.05 e. Repairs$1816.02 f. Meth test composite$ 264.50 g. Meth test full$1949.25 h. Insurance excess$ 550.00

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys See section 40(1)(e).
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.
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.
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.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord had to have all locks replaced. An invoice for $579.30 was submitted. That amount is ordered.
The landlord provided copies of inspection reports at the start of the tenancy, two routine reports during the tenancy and one for the end of the tenancy. The state of the premises at the end of the tenancy was better than during the tenancy and it was evident that the tenant had made some effort to tidy the property and repair some damage.
In the photos it was evident that the tenant had left some rubbish about the property and abandoned some items of furniture. The landlord needed to hire a skip bin and pay someone to tidy the property up. The lawns had not been mown.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Easy Clean for $1970.00. This was for Property maintenance 14 hours, Cleaning 50 hours and Oven clean, $80.00.
The invoice reads: Tues 15 th October Moved all the rubbish inside the house ready for skip bin. Moved whiteware outside Wednesday 16 th October Put all rubbish in skip bin Laundry: wiped ceilings, walls, shelves. Cleaned laundry tub and cupboard Cleaned cupboard door and back door. Scrubbed and mopped floors Property maintenance Moved rubbish into skip bins from inside, outside and under the house. Weed eating and mowing lawns. Thursday 17 th October Property maintenance
The cleaning was 21 hours at $50 an hour and included wiping ceilings. The photos did not reveal a great deal of cleaning required. The photos did not show the ceilings or any dirty areas. The bath appeared clean. The landlord said that the premises smelt and no cleaning had been done. They had not been cleaned during the tenancy for some time. It was not a matter of simply wiping them or vacuuming. The tenant is required only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
However, I am not satisfied that the tenant was responsible for 21 hours of cleaning. He was not required to leave the premises in pristine condition for the next tenant. I have allowed 16 hours for cleaning, deduction $250.
The maintenance was not itemised. The landlord said it was for lawns and tidying, repair of the kitchen window, bathroom vanity and replacement of hinges. showed photos of missing door handles and broken hinges. The extent appears to be more than fair wear and tear. However, there is a further invoice for the window repair and another for items as outlined below.
The tenant is not responsible for maintenance, and the repairs in this invoice have not been listed. The landlord should be reimbursed for time spent moving rubbish and mowing lawns. I have deducted 4 hours at $60 per hour which is $240.00. In total that is a deduction of $490.
The other repairs in an invoice totalling $1816.02 from PP Whitlock were: Replace broken handles on kitchen window and bedrooms where needed Repair broken bathroom door frame by hinges Repair drawers on vanity in bathroom Rehang laundry cupboard door Put a side gate latch so it closes Repair side fence at bottom of driveway Install a new wooden handrail at front steps Install a new rotary washing line Stop leak in toilet in bathroom
The invoice included $871.65 for materials but no receipts were provided. GST was added to this.
The landlord said that the materials included about $400 for a replacement washing line, making a new vanity drawer and the new handrail. The washing line was about 3 years old.
I have reservations about the quality of the washing line. This is appears to be a fairly flimsy rotary line, but I have decided that it is more likely than not that the damage to the line was caused by the careless or intentional actions of the tenant or someone there with his permission. Although there are no receipts for materials, the amount claimed does not appear excessive.
The landlord has not proved that the actions of the tenant caused a leak in the toilet. I have therefore made a deduction of $100.00 for that.
One window and window frame were completely missing. An invoice was submitted for $583.05.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
The landlord also sought the costs of methamphetamine testing. There were no tests undertaken before the tenant moved in. Therefore that landlord has not established that the tenant is responsible for the presence of methamphetamine in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The claims for testing are therefore dismissed.
The landlord also raised the question of carpet cleaning and replacement. A quote has been obtained for the latter. Because these items were not listed in the application and documents filed, a further application will need to be made.
Clearer photographs, itemised invoices and receipts would assist the landlord in future claims.
Because Williams Property Solutions Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105618 — Property damage at 16 Wellesley Street, Feilding, 4702

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105618 — Property damage at 16 Wellesley Street, Feilding, 4702

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions