What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5143668?

The tribunal order states: Hae Joo Ji to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Du, Susan

How much money was awarded in case 5143668?

Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; - Stone Benchtop: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $963.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143668?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11631198-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5143668?

The tribunal order states: Hae Joo Ji to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Du, Susan

How much money was awarded in case 5143668?

Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; - Stone Benchtop: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $963.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143668?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11631198-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1310, 8 Airedale Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143668 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143668 — net $1,769.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$963.31	Water rates
Cleaning	$20.00	Cleaning
Carpet, chair and mattress Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet, chair and mattress Cleaning
Repairs: - stone benchtop	$391.00	Repairs: - stone benchtop
Repairs: - wall damage	$138.00	Repairs: - wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	ith the claim, I make an order for the filing fee to be paid to the landlord of $27.00 OUTCOME
Net award	$1,769.31
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,769.31

Order

Hae Joo Ji to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Du, Susan $1,769.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6188717-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Du, Susan: $1,769.31 Hae Joo Ji: $830.69
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and the tenant, Ms Ji, attended the video hearing.
The tenant, Mr Moon did not join the remote hearing and was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied Mr Moon was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The tenancy commenced on 16 December 2023 and ended on 2 January 2025.
This is a cross application in respect of a tenancy in Auckland Central.

TENANTS CLAIM

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord has applied for: a. Reimbursement of Energy Co invoices. b. Compensation for a damaged benchtop. c. Compensation for cleaning, wall damage and parking costs. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

ENERGYCO INVOICES

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy.
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 1 I therefore consider the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach which deals with the water charges on a fair basis.
The landlord claims $1,273.43 for Energyco water charges. 1 Section 85 of the RTA
The tenant disputed liability for metered water, however the tenancy agreement confirms the tenant is liable for her water usage. The issue, as I see it, is whether the tenant is liable for the daily fixed charge.
The landlord said the Energyco daily fixed charge is not incurred when a tenant is not occupying the premises if the landlord notifies them that the premises is not occupied. That has not occurred in this case and the daily fixed charge continued to be invoiced after this tenancy ended. The amount claimed in the landlord’s application form included the daily fixed charge for a period after the tenancy ended. The landlord also said that tenants are asked to set up an account in their own name, however that did not occur in this case and the tenant continued to use water and receive the invoices directed to “the occupier” of the premises.
The landlord referred me to a case in which the Tribunal ordered the fixed fee be payable by the tenant. 2 More recently the Tribunal has determined that the Energyco daily fixed charges are not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation or use. The Adjudicator said: I understand the point the landlord is trying to make, namely that if the premises were unoccupied and there was no active account with Energyco Ltd, that there would be no water charges. However, it seems to me that the most relevant factor is that the landlord had an account with Energyco. In this case the charges were ongoing even after the tenant had left the property .... It cannot be said that the tenant is liable as these costs are not exclusively attributable to her occupation or use. 3
Accordingly, I dismiss the claim for the daily fixed charges to be paid by the tenant. The Energyco balance due at the end of the tenancy was $1,274.43. I 2 See Landlord v Tenant [2020] NZTT Auckland 4199496, 4199775 3 Among Group Limited as agents for Mahkota Trustee Limited v Webster [2022] NZTT 4323966 at 13. deduct the daily fixed charge of $311.12 (as calculated in the table below and make an order for water rates of $963.31. Invoice dateFixed fee 5 February 2024 $ 20.46 19 April 2024 $ 60.72 24 July 2024 $ 58.74 18 October 2024 $ 61.38 20 January 2025 $ 32.34 $ 36.90 Excluding GST $ 270.54 GST $ 40.58 Total daily fixed charge $ 311.12

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

GENERAL CLEANING

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces 4 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces).
Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7
The landlord said the premises required extra cleaning in certain areas to enable the premises to be relet. The landlord provided an invoice and photographs in support of the claim.
The tenant said she did a proper clean and disputes paying any additional cost for cleaning.
I consider on reviewing the photographs provided by both parties that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy, except for the shower which the tenant should have wiped down. I consider $20 compensates the landlord for this additional cleaning and dismiss the balance of the claim.
I decline to grant the claim for parking as the landlord should expect to do some degree of cleaning between tenancies as part of the business of being a landlord. and expect to pay parking as part of this. CLEANING OF CARPET, DINING CHAIR AND MATTRESS
The landlord claimed $230 for the cleaning of the carpet, a stained dining chair and a mattress.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs of the marked carpet, the stained dining chair and the stained mattress. The landlord also provided photographs from the commencement of the tenancy. The pre tenancy photographs were undated but the landlord provided oral evidence that the photographs were taken at the commencement of the tenancy. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The tenant disputed that the carpet was unclean and said the mattress was unclean at the start of the tenancy. The tenant accepted dropping food on the dining chair, which appears to have caused an oil stain.
I consider the landlord has proved, on the evidence, that the carpet, chair and mattress were clean at the commencement of the tenancy and required cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I make an order for the full amount claimed of $230.

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. 8
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 9
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). 10 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). Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11
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 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 9 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 10 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. ). 11 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 12
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. 13
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s insurance excess is $1000 and rent was $650 per week.

BENCH TOP

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the engineered stone bench top which had a small chip in it. The landlord says the damage must have been caused carelessly by the tenant or someone permitted in the premises by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs of the benchtop, undamaged, at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said the benchtop was likely installed in 2016 when the building was built, so it would be 8-9 years old and appeared in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider the stone benchtop is likely to have a lifespan more than 10 years.
The tenant says she had not noticed the damage and raised whether the damage was caused during her tenancy. She also said if it was caused during her tenancy, it was not intentional and she hardly used the kitchen.
I am satisfied the damage was more likely than not caused during the tenancy and was likely to have been caused by carelessness by the tenant or someone permitted in the premises by the tenant. I make an order for the full amount claimed of $391.00
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved with the photographs 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. provided and the invoice provided by the landlord. The amount ordered is for the repair of the chip only therefore there is no deduction for betterment and depreciation.

WALL DAMAGE

The landlord claimed $138 for wall damage.
The landlord referred to various areas of wall damage however the invoice refers only to the damage in the bedroom,
The tenant accepted that she caused the wall damage, by installing a hook, and it appears that when it was removed it has left a hole in the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I consider this careless damage. The tenant said she thought this damage would warrant compensation of $50-$60.
I consider the amount claimed, being the invoiced amount for the repair of $138 is reasonable for the nature and extent of the damage and make an order for the full amount claimed.
The amount ordered is proved.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has been substantially successful with the claim, I make an order for the filing fee to be paid to the landlord of $27.00

OUTCOME

I make an order for a split payment of the bond in accordance with the findings above. The balance of the claims are dismissed.

SUPPRESSON

Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143668 — net $1,769.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$963.31	Water rates
Cleaning	$20.00	Cleaning
Carpet, chair and mattress Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet, chair and mattress Cleaning
Repairs: - stone benchtop	$391.00	Repairs: - stone benchtop
Repairs: - wall damage	$138.00	Repairs: - wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	ith the claim, I make an order for the filing fee to be paid to the landlord of $27.00 OUTCOME
Net award	$1,769.31
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,769.31

Order

Hae Joo Ji to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Du, Susan $1,769.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6188717-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Du, Susan: $1,769.31 Hae Joo Ji: $830.69
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and the tenant, Ms Ji, attended the video hearing.
The tenant, Mr Moon did not join the remote hearing and was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied Mr Moon was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The tenancy commenced on 16 December 2023 and ended on 2 January 2025.
This is a cross application in respect of a tenancy in Auckland Central.

TENANTS CLAIM

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord has applied for: a. Reimbursement of Energy Co invoices. b. Compensation for a damaged benchtop. c. Compensation for cleaning, wall damage and parking costs. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

ENERGYCO INVOICES

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy.
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 1 I therefore consider the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach which deals with the water charges on a fair basis.
The landlord claims $1,273.43 for Energyco water charges. 1 Section 85 of the RTA
The tenant disputed liability for metered water, however the tenancy agreement confirms the tenant is liable for her water usage. The issue, as I see it, is whether the tenant is liable for the daily fixed charge.
The landlord said the Energyco daily fixed charge is not incurred when a tenant is not occupying the premises if the landlord notifies them that the premises is not occupied. That has not occurred in this case and the daily fixed charge continued to be invoiced after this tenancy ended. The amount claimed in the landlord’s application form included the daily fixed charge for a period after the tenancy ended. The landlord also said that tenants are asked to set up an account in their own name, however that did not occur in this case and the tenant continued to use water and receive the invoices directed to “the occupier” of the premises.
The landlord referred me to a case in which the Tribunal ordered the fixed fee be payable by the tenant. 2 More recently the Tribunal has determined that the Energyco daily fixed charges are not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation or use. The Adjudicator said: I understand the point the landlord is trying to make, namely that if the premises were unoccupied and there was no active account with Energyco Ltd, that there would be no water charges. However, it seems to me that the most relevant factor is that the landlord had an account with Energyco. In this case the charges were ongoing even after the tenant had left the property .... It cannot be said that the tenant is liable as these costs are not exclusively attributable to her occupation or use. 3
Accordingly, I dismiss the claim for the daily fixed charges to be paid by the tenant. The Energyco balance due at the end of the tenancy was $1,274.43. I 2 See Landlord v Tenant [2020] NZTT Auckland 4199496, 4199775 3 Among Group Limited as agents for Mahkota Trustee Limited v Webster [2022] NZTT 4323966 at 13. deduct the daily fixed charge of $311.12 (as calculated in the table below and make an order for water rates of $963.31. Invoice dateFixed fee 5 February 2024 $ 20.46 19 April 2024 $ 60.72 24 July 2024 $ 58.74 18 October 2024 $ 61.38 20 January 2025 $ 32.34 $ 36.90 Excluding GST $ 270.54 GST $ 40.58 Total daily fixed charge $ 311.12

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

GENERAL CLEANING

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces 4 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces).
Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7
The landlord said the premises required extra cleaning in certain areas to enable the premises to be relet. The landlord provided an invoice and photographs in support of the claim.
The tenant said she did a proper clean and disputes paying any additional cost for cleaning.
I consider on reviewing the photographs provided by both parties that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy, except for the shower which the tenant should have wiped down. I consider $20 compensates the landlord for this additional cleaning and dismiss the balance of the claim.
I decline to grant the claim for parking as the landlord should expect to do some degree of cleaning between tenancies as part of the business of being a landlord. and expect to pay parking as part of this. CLEANING OF CARPET, DINING CHAIR AND MATTRESS
The landlord claimed $230 for the cleaning of the carpet, a stained dining chair and a mattress.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs of the marked carpet, the stained dining chair and the stained mattress. The landlord also provided photographs from the commencement of the tenancy. The pre tenancy photographs were undated but the landlord provided oral evidence that the photographs were taken at the commencement of the tenancy. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The tenant disputed that the carpet was unclean and said the mattress was unclean at the start of the tenancy. The tenant accepted dropping food on the dining chair, which appears to have caused an oil stain.
I consider the landlord has proved, on the evidence, that the carpet, chair and mattress were clean at the commencement of the tenancy and required cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I make an order for the full amount claimed of $230.

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. 8
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 9
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). 10 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). Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 11
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 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 9 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 10 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. ). 11 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 12
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. 13
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s insurance excess is $1000 and rent was $650 per week.

BENCH TOP

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the engineered stone bench top which had a small chip in it. The landlord says the damage must have been caused carelessly by the tenant or someone permitted in the premises by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs of the benchtop, undamaged, at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said the benchtop was likely installed in 2016 when the building was built, so it would be 8-9 years old and appeared in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider the stone benchtop is likely to have a lifespan more than 10 years.
The tenant says she had not noticed the damage and raised whether the damage was caused during her tenancy. She also said if it was caused during her tenancy, it was not intentional and she hardly used the kitchen.
I am satisfied the damage was more likely than not caused during the tenancy and was likely to have been caused by carelessness by the tenant or someone permitted in the premises by the tenant. I make an order for the full amount claimed of $391.00
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved with the photographs 12 See section 49B(1) RTA. 13 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. provided and the invoice provided by the landlord. The amount ordered is for the repair of the chip only therefore there is no deduction for betterment and depreciation.

WALL DAMAGE

The landlord claimed $138 for wall damage.
The landlord referred to various areas of wall damage however the invoice refers only to the damage in the bedroom,
The tenant accepted that she caused the wall damage, by installing a hook, and it appears that when it was removed it has left a hole in the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I consider this careless damage. The tenant said she thought this damage would warrant compensation of $50-$60.
I consider the amount claimed, being the invoiced amount for the repair of $138 is reasonable for the nature and extent of the damage and make an order for the full amount claimed.
The amount ordered is proved.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has been substantially successful with the claim, I make an order for the filing fee to be paid to the landlord of $27.00

OUTCOME

I make an order for a split payment of the bond in accordance with the findings above. The balance of the claims are dismissed.

SUPPRESSON

Neither party sought name suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIM

ENERGYCO INVOICES

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

GENERAL CLEANING

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

BENCH TOP

WALL DAMAGE

FILING FEE

OUTCOME

SUPPRESSON

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIM

ENERGYCO INVOICES

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

GENERAL CLEANING

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

BENCH TOP

WALL DAMAGE

FILING FEE

OUTCOME

SUPPRESSON

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions