What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5138229?

The tribunal order states: Nikki Bull must pay Julie Aitken $7,850.40 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5138229?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $482.33 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,389.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Bed Topper: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Watercare: $134.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11555993-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5138229?

The tribunal order states: Nikki Bull must pay Julie Aitken $7,850.40 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5138229?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $482.33 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,389.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Bed Topper: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Watercare: $134.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11555993-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Surf Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138229 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138229 — net $7,850.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,389.29	Rent arrears
Watercare	$134.78	Watercare
Electricity	$482.33	Electricity
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$120.00	Rubbish removal
Door damage (x2	$200.00	Door damage (x2
Coffee table damage	$80.00	Coffee table damage
Chair damage(x 2	$100.00	Chair damage(x 2
Chattels replacement	$325.00	Chattels replacement
Wall repairs	$100.00	Wall repairs
Rug replacement (x4	$320.00	Rug replacement (x4
Replace bed topper	$200.00	Replace bed topper
Replace bedroom carpet	$500.00	Replace bedroom carpet
Carpet Cleaning: bedroom	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning: bedroom
Lock/key replacement	$322.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,850.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,850.40

Order

Nikki Bull must pay Julie Aitken $7,850.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and was unable to be contacted on the phone number given by her in the agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord rents these premises for short term stays through air B n’ B. Her evidence is that because the tenant was desperate for a place to stay for a short period, the landlord agreed to this tenancy. The agreement provides for a fixed term tenancy from 6 September 2024 to 20 December 2024 at a weekly rent of $725.00.
The incorrect form of agreement was used. It contains terms inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). Thinking that the agreement was for a shorter term the landlord did not lodge the tenant’s $1,000.00 bond.
The tenant vacated the premises on 23 December 2024 so is liable for rent to that date (see s.60 RTA). The landlord has provided rent records proving the amount owing to the end of the tenancy.
The agreement provides for the tenant to pay for metred water and electricity supplied to the premises. The landlord has provided Watercare and Mercury Energy invoices for the period of the tenancy, which prove the amounts owed.

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 return to the landlord the keys that were provided at the start of the tenancy and there is evidence, albeit hearsay, that the premises were entered, using a key, after the tenancy ended. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost of the locks being changed, as proved by the invoice provided.
End of tenancy photographs provided by the landlord show that a significant quantity of rubbish was left at the premises which needed to be disposed of and that significant cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The sum claimed as compensation for the cost of removing and disposing of the rubbish left by the tenant is reasonable, having regard to the photographs showing the quantity of rubbish left.
I accept the landlord’s evidence about the amount of time (15 hours is claimed) that was required to clean the premises and bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. That is consistent with the evidence. I apply a lower ($30.00 per hour) hourly rate as compensation for that work.

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 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.
The landlord does not have insurance for tenant/ pet damage.
The landlord’s evidence is that when she did the exit inspection she discovered that there was significant damage, much of it caused by a dog which the tenant had at the premises. The agreement did allow the tenant to have one small dog, of which the landlord provided a photograph. The landlord also provided a photograph of a much larger dog which was kept at the premises without the landlord’s consent.
That damage included stains and odours from dog faeces on carpets and the deck, staining and odours from urine on carpets in the 2 bedrooms and on throw rugs on the hard floors. The rugs, some wall areas, chairs, doors and a coffee table appear to have been chewed.
The landlord’s oral evidence supported by the photographs provided, satisfy me, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were damaged as described.
I find it proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was beyond fair wear and tear. Accordingly, the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the resulting loss.
The landlord also says that many chattels were found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. The missing chattels are itemised in a list included with the application and provided to the tenant by the landlord after the exit inspection was done.
Pre-tenancy photographs provided by the landlord and the fact that the premises were provided as air B n’ B accommodation, satisfy me that as claimed by the landlord, the premises were provided fully equipped as self sufficient accommodation, with appliances, bedding, pots and pans, cutlery and crockery (6 sets of each). It is of course difficult to prove the absence of the missing items at the end of the tenancy. I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s evidence about the items that were provided with the tenancy but not there when the tenancy ended. The tenant was provided with the full list and has had the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s claims. Compensation amounts
The landlord says that she is not insured and cannot afford to immediately replace all the damaged or missing items but needs to generate income from air B n’ B hosting at the premises so in the meantime has replaced many of the items from her home, until she can afford to buy replacements.
The landlord’s evidence is that after several attempts at cleaning the carpet in one of the bedrooms, it was able to be brought to a reasonable condition. Compensation for that cleaning work is claimed. She says that the carpet in the other bedroom could not be recovered and had to be disposed of. The throw rugs also needed to be disposed of.
The claim for carpet cleaning is reasonable.
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet was new shortly before this tenancy began, the landlord having laid newly bought second hand carpet herself. I am satisfied that the $500.00 claims is reasonable, for the cost of removing and disposing of the existing carpet and buying and laying equivalent carpet.
The landlord claims compensation of $80.00 for each of the 4 throw rugs that needed to be disposed of and replaced. Photographs provided of some of them show that is reasonable.
One of the chewed doors is of a more modern louvre type. Louvres have been chewed through and it will need to be replaced. The other is an older style bevelled glass door which will require sanding and repainting. The compensation claimed of $100.00 for each door is reasonable. The compensation claimed for the cost of replacing the chewed coffee table and 2 x cane chairs and for the cost or repairing the wall damage is also reasonable having regard to evidence of the damage.
One of the larger compensation claims is for the cost of replacing a bed topper. Having heard the landlord’s evidence about its purchase price and likely replacement cost I find that claim appropriately allows for replacement cost and depreciation.
I have made a combined award for the cost or replacing miscellaneous chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy. Those are itemised in the application and as noted, the list of those items has been sent to the tenant. The individual sums claimed are modest and appropriate.
Because Julie Aitken has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138229 — net $7,850.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,389.29	Rent arrears
Watercare	$134.78	Watercare
Electricity	$482.33	Electricity
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$120.00	Rubbish removal
Door damage (x2	$200.00	Door damage (x2
Coffee table damage	$80.00	Coffee table damage
Chair damage(x 2	$100.00	Chair damage(x 2
Chattels replacement	$325.00	Chattels replacement
Wall repairs	$100.00	Wall repairs
Rug replacement (x4	$320.00	Rug replacement (x4
Replace bed topper	$200.00	Replace bed topper
Replace bedroom carpet	$500.00	Replace bedroom carpet
Carpet Cleaning: bedroom	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning: bedroom
Lock/key replacement	$322.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,850.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,850.40

Order

Nikki Bull must pay Julie Aitken $7,850.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and was unable to be contacted on the phone number given by her in the agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord rents these premises for short term stays through air B n’ B. Her evidence is that because the tenant was desperate for a place to stay for a short period, the landlord agreed to this tenancy. The agreement provides for a fixed term tenancy from 6 September 2024 to 20 December 2024 at a weekly rent of $725.00.
The incorrect form of agreement was used. It contains terms inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). Thinking that the agreement was for a shorter term the landlord did not lodge the tenant’s $1,000.00 bond.
The tenant vacated the premises on 23 December 2024 so is liable for rent to that date (see s.60 RTA). The landlord has provided rent records proving the amount owing to the end of the tenancy.
The agreement provides for the tenant to pay for metred water and electricity supplied to the premises. The landlord has provided Watercare and Mercury Energy invoices for the period of the tenancy, which prove the amounts owed.

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 return to the landlord the keys that were provided at the start of the tenancy and there is evidence, albeit hearsay, that the premises were entered, using a key, after the tenancy ended. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost of the locks being changed, as proved by the invoice provided.
End of tenancy photographs provided by the landlord show that a significant quantity of rubbish was left at the premises which needed to be disposed of and that significant cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The sum claimed as compensation for the cost of removing and disposing of the rubbish left by the tenant is reasonable, having regard to the photographs showing the quantity of rubbish left.
I accept the landlord’s evidence about the amount of time (15 hours is claimed) that was required to clean the premises and bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. That is consistent with the evidence. I apply a lower ($30.00 per hour) hourly rate as compensation for that work.

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 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.
The landlord does not have insurance for tenant/ pet damage.
The landlord’s evidence is that when she did the exit inspection she discovered that there was significant damage, much of it caused by a dog which the tenant had at the premises. The agreement did allow the tenant to have one small dog, of which the landlord provided a photograph. The landlord also provided a photograph of a much larger dog which was kept at the premises without the landlord’s consent.
That damage included stains and odours from dog faeces on carpets and the deck, staining and odours from urine on carpets in the 2 bedrooms and on throw rugs on the hard floors. The rugs, some wall areas, chairs, doors and a coffee table appear to have been chewed.
The landlord’s oral evidence supported by the photographs provided, satisfy me, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were damaged as described.
I find it proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was beyond fair wear and tear. Accordingly, the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the resulting loss.
The landlord also says that many chattels were found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. The missing chattels are itemised in a list included with the application and provided to the tenant by the landlord after the exit inspection was done.
Pre-tenancy photographs provided by the landlord and the fact that the premises were provided as air B n’ B accommodation, satisfy me that as claimed by the landlord, the premises were provided fully equipped as self sufficient accommodation, with appliances, bedding, pots and pans, cutlery and crockery (6 sets of each). It is of course difficult to prove the absence of the missing items at the end of the tenancy. I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s evidence about the items that were provided with the tenancy but not there when the tenancy ended. The tenant was provided with the full list and has had the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s claims. Compensation amounts
The landlord says that she is not insured and cannot afford to immediately replace all the damaged or missing items but needs to generate income from air B n’ B hosting at the premises so in the meantime has replaced many of the items from her home, until she can afford to buy replacements.
The landlord’s evidence is that after several attempts at cleaning the carpet in one of the bedrooms, it was able to be brought to a reasonable condition. Compensation for that cleaning work is claimed. She says that the carpet in the other bedroom could not be recovered and had to be disposed of. The throw rugs also needed to be disposed of.
The claim for carpet cleaning is reasonable.
The landlord’s evidence is that the carpet was new shortly before this tenancy began, the landlord having laid newly bought second hand carpet herself. I am satisfied that the $500.00 claims is reasonable, for the cost of removing and disposing of the existing carpet and buying and laying equivalent carpet.
The landlord claims compensation of $80.00 for each of the 4 throw rugs that needed to be disposed of and replaced. Photographs provided of some of them show that is reasonable.
One of the chewed doors is of a more modern louvre type. Louvres have been chewed through and it will need to be replaced. The other is an older style bevelled glass door which will require sanding and repainting. The compensation claimed of $100.00 for each door is reasonable. The compensation claimed for the cost of replacing the chewed coffee table and 2 x cane chairs and for the cost or repairing the wall damage is also reasonable having regard to evidence of the damage.
One of the larger compensation claims is for the cost of replacing a bed topper. Having heard the landlord’s evidence about its purchase price and likely replacement cost I find that claim appropriately allows for replacement cost and depreciation.
I have made a combined award for the cost or replacing miscellaneous chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy. Those are itemised in the application and as noted, the list of those items has been sent to the tenant. The individual sums claimed are modest and appropriate.
Because Julie Aitken has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138229 — Rent arrears at 43 Surf Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138229 — Rent arrears at 43 Surf Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

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

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

Frequently asked questions