What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134008?

The tribunal order states: Lesina Lavasii and Fata Lavasii must pay Harper Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5134008?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $423.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,218.44 awarded to landlord; Gib replacing, plastering, and paint…: $4,370.00 awarded to landlord; Replacing Sink In Toilet: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $907.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134008?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008519-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134008?

The tribunal order states: Lesina Lavasii and Fata Lavasii must pay Harper Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5134008?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $423.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,218.44 awarded to landlord; Gib replacing, plastering, and paint…: $4,370.00 awarded to landlord; Replacing Sink In Toilet: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $907.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134008?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008519-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Joe F Stanley Place, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134008 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134008 — net $7,905.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,218.44	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replacing sink in toilet	$610.00	Replacing sink in toilet
Replacement garage door remotes and recoding	$350.00	Replacement garage door remotes and recoding
Pest control	$423.06	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$907.35	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Gib replacing, plastering, and painting	$4,370.00	Repairs: Gib replacing, plastering, and painting
Net award	$7,905.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,905.85

Order

Lesina Lavasii and Fata Lavasii must pay Harper Property Management Limited $7,905.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,218.44 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Replacing sink in toilet$610.00 Replacement garage door remotes and recoding$350.00 Pest control$423.06 Rubbish removal$907.35 Repairs: Gib replacing, plastering, and painting$4,370.00 Total award$7,905.85 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,905.85

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenants did not attend. A few hours before the hearing was to commence a person contacted the Tribunal to say she was representing the tenants today, but she was sick. The tenants have not sought to apply for a representative and so I would not have accepted this person without the authority of the tenants and approval from the Tribunal.
Regardless I rang the tenants on their mobile number, and it immediately disconnected. I then rang this person who was going to represent the tenants. A male answered the phone and said she was not at home and did not know how to get hold of her.
The tenants have not communicated with the Tribunal seeking an adjournment, so I am proceeding with the hearing in their absence. The landlord advised that attempts to have a mediation where not able to proceed either due to a lack of response form the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation for damage to the property.
This property was left in one of the worst conditions I have ever seen. The level of neglect, filth and damage was extraordinary.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 December 2024. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
At the end of the tenancy the rent arrears were $3058.44. The tenants refunded their bond of $1840.00 to the landlord to offset some of the rent arrears they owed. After deducting the bond, the outstanding rent arrears is $1218.44.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report and photos. The photos show a filth property inside and outside. The walls, windows, sills, floors were covered in dirt, rubbish, and marks. Rubbish and unwanted possessions were throughout the house and exterior of the house.
The landlord provided invoices for rubbish removal at $907.35, flea treatment for the flea infestation at $423.06.
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the two garage door remotes that were given at the start of the tenancy and the recoding of the new remotes.
The tenants have not returned the remotes. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the garage door remotes, rubbish and flea treatments.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Multiple holes punched in the walls of the garage, laundry, bedrooms 2, 3, 4, toilet, lounge, and hallway. There were numerous pin holes throughout the property, paint ripped off and deep marks on the walls and ceilings. -A vanity and basin fixed to a toilet wall was removed without the permission of the landlord. The vanity and basin have not been located.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant cannot disprove liability for the damage. The damage is throughout the property and clearly intentional damage. I say this because of the sheer volume of holes and damage.
The landlord has provided the reports, photos, and invoices for the cost of repairing the damage.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for $4370.00 the wall repairs. I consider given the work that would have been involved in remedying the damage, that the invoice is very reasonable. Furthermore, the landlord is successful with their claim for $610.00 to replace the vanity and basin taken by the tenants.
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. However, given the sheer volume of the damage, depreciation is not applicable in this case.
Because Harper Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134008 — net $7,905.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,218.44	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replacing sink in toilet	$610.00	Replacing sink in toilet
Replacement garage door remotes and recoding	$350.00	Replacement garage door remotes and recoding
Pest control	$423.06	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$907.35	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Gib replacing, plastering, and painting	$4,370.00	Repairs: Gib replacing, plastering, and painting
Net award	$7,905.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,905.85

Order

Lesina Lavasii and Fata Lavasii must pay Harper Property Management Limited $7,905.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,218.44 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Replacing sink in toilet$610.00 Replacement garage door remotes and recoding$350.00 Pest control$423.06 Rubbish removal$907.35 Repairs: Gib replacing, plastering, and painting$4,370.00 Total award$7,905.85 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,905.85

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenants did not attend. A few hours before the hearing was to commence a person contacted the Tribunal to say she was representing the tenants today, but she was sick. The tenants have not sought to apply for a representative and so I would not have accepted this person without the authority of the tenants and approval from the Tribunal.
Regardless I rang the tenants on their mobile number, and it immediately disconnected. I then rang this person who was going to represent the tenants. A male answered the phone and said she was not at home and did not know how to get hold of her.
The tenants have not communicated with the Tribunal seeking an adjournment, so I am proceeding with the hearing in their absence. The landlord advised that attempts to have a mediation where not able to proceed either due to a lack of response form the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation for damage to the property.
This property was left in one of the worst conditions I have ever seen. The level of neglect, filth and damage was extraordinary.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 December 2024. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
At the end of the tenancy the rent arrears were $3058.44. The tenants refunded their bond of $1840.00 to the landlord to offset some of the rent arrears they owed. After deducting the bond, the outstanding rent arrears is $1218.44.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report and photos. The photos show a filth property inside and outside. The walls, windows, sills, floors were covered in dirt, rubbish, and marks. Rubbish and unwanted possessions were throughout the house and exterior of the house.
The landlord provided invoices for rubbish removal at $907.35, flea treatment for the flea infestation at $423.06.
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the two garage door remotes that were given at the start of the tenancy and the recoding of the new remotes.
The tenants have not returned the remotes. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the garage door remotes, rubbish and flea treatments.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Multiple holes punched in the walls of the garage, laundry, bedrooms 2, 3, 4, toilet, lounge, and hallway. There were numerous pin holes throughout the property, paint ripped off and deep marks on the walls and ceilings. -A vanity and basin fixed to a toilet wall was removed without the permission of the landlord. The vanity and basin have not been located.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant cannot disprove liability for the damage. The damage is throughout the property and clearly intentional damage. I say this because of the sheer volume of holes and damage.
The landlord has provided the reports, photos, and invoices for the cost of repairing the damage.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for $4370.00 the wall repairs. I consider given the work that would have been involved in remedying the damage, that the invoice is very reasonable. Furthermore, the landlord is successful with their claim for $610.00 to replace the vanity and basin taken by the tenants.
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. However, given the sheer volume of the damage, depreciation is not applicable in this case.
Because Harper Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134008 — Property damage at 27 Joe F Stanley Place, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134008 — Property damage at 27 Joe F Stanley Place, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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