What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147672?

The tribunal order states: Simranjeet Singh and Kamal Kumar must pay Auckland Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5147672?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Water Charges October-December 2024: $141.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11571770-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147672?

The tribunal order states: Simranjeet Singh and Kamal Kumar must pay Auckland Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5147672?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Water Charges October-December 2024: $141.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11571770-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 McDougall Street, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5147672 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147672 — net $474.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning (stain removal	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning (stain removal
Replacement laundry basin	$448.50	Replacement laundry basin
Repairs to kitchen floor	$750.00	Repairs to kitchen floor
Water charges October-December 2024	$141.84	Water charges October-December 2024
Cleaning to kitchen floor	$57.50	Cleaning to kitchen floor
Replacement light	$109.25	Replacement light
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$474.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$474.09

Order

Simranjeet Singh and Kamal Kumar must pay Auckland Property Management Limited - as Agent for Bo Jiang $474.09 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,313.00 (5991514-004) to Auckland Property Management Limited - as Agent for Bo Jiang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 10 March 2024 and ended on 7 December 2024. On 27 January 2025 the landlord applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Tenant’s response to the claims
The tenant accepted the claim for water charges ($141.84) and a replacement ceiling light ($218.50).
The tenant accepted that the laundry basin had been damaged but said he could have fixed it for a better price. However, he was not allowed to re-enter the premises after the Tribunal terminated the tenancy.
A claim for wall repairs and replacement of a door-stop was disputed by the tenant who said the stop was missing at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant opposed the landlord’s claim for cleaning and repairs caused by the spillage of ink from a rubbish bin onto the kitchen vinyl flooring. The tenant said the stain could have been removed with additional cleaning and/or it should have been possible to colour-match the flooring. This would have enabled a targeted repair rather than replacement of the entire floor. It was unfair that he was being asked to pay for all the flooring.
The tenant disputed the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. While there was a stain in one of the rooms, the tenant said he was being charged for carpet cleaning for the entire house. The tenant provided an email from the carpet cleaner which stated that their invoice of 18 December 2024 for $253.00 was for steam cleaning in 3 bedrooms, the living room and hallway. The invoice stated: “Carpet cleaning”.

Is the tenant liable for carpet cleaning?

The landlord provided a cleaning invoice dated 18 December 2024 for $253.00. This comprised a call out fee of $110.00 plus GST and “Stain Removal Services in the living area” of $110.00 plus GST. At the hearing the landlord said the invoice was issued after she spoke to the cleaners to confirm they had performed a stain removal in one room.
The tenant, as noted above, provided an invoice for carpet cleaning with the same date and price but a different description of the work, together with emails and photographs from the cleaning company. The cleaner seems to have photographed more than one room. The accompanying email states that they cleaned several rooms.
The landlord was permitted to present further evidence after the hearing to explain the discrepancy between the two invoices provided by the cleaning company. The landlord provided messages from the cleaners confirming that their invoice was for stain removal in the living room, together with the work order for removal of the living room stain only. The invoice for $253.00 reflects the cleaner’s current prices for stain removal, per stain.
Ultimately, whatever work was actually performed, I am not satisfied that the tenants are being asked to pay for more than the cost of stain removal in the living room. The pricing information indicates that the tenants would have been charged about $35.00 more if they had been charged for cleaning in 3 bedrooms. I award $253.00.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $750.00 which is less than 4 weeks’ rent.
It was not disputed by the tenants that the laundry basin was damaged during the tenancy. I understand the tenant’s view that he could have arranged a cheaper repair if he had been allowed to go back, but once a tenancy is terminated the tenant is required to leave (section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The cost of replacing the basin ($448.50) is less than the insurance excess and there is no evidence that this was not a reasonable price.
The tenant suggested that some of the parts for the basin were unnecessary, such as the pop-up waste and trap. The landlord’s photographs show that the crack probably went right through, so that the basin would leak. No evidence was presented to establish that any of the work performed or parts used were unnecessary.
As to the wall damage, the landlord’s ingoing inspection photographs do not appear to show the door-stop in place at the start of the tenancy. The door handle has been pushed against the wall and has caused a small mark or dent. The landlord submitted that it was careless to push the door against the wall.
I consider that the damage, which was minor, was not carelessly caused in the absence of a door-stop to prevent the door unintentionally hitting the wall. I decline to award the repair and replacement cost for the door-stop and wall repair. This cost was included in the invoice for the replacement light cover without separate itemisation ($218.50). It is necessary to make an apportionment on limited information. I award 50% of the invoice for the light cover ($109.25).
The landlord’s photographs show ink staining on the kitchen floor. A professional cleaning company attempted to remove the stain but were unable to do so. In their invoice they indicated that they could do nothing more without risking further damage. A flooring company unsuccessfully tried to find the same colour and thickness to use for repairs. The flooring had to be replaced at a total cost of $1,840.00 after adjustment by insurers.
The tenant said he would have been able to find the same flooring so that the damaged area could have been repaired. There was no evidence presented to support this and the advice from the flooring company was to the contrary. I am satisfied that a repair was not possible. The landlord has been forced to pay for replacement flooring earlier than would have been the case if it had not been stained.
The tenant is not being asked to pay for replacement of the entire floor: the tenants are only liable for the insurance excess of $750.00. I also award the unsuccessful attempt to clean the ink stain ($57.50) as this was a reasonable step to mitigate the loss. Joint liability
Although the tenancy ended in December 2024, one of the tenants said they left on 11 October 2024. The tenancy agreement provided for joint and several liability. No evidence was presented to show that the outgoing tenant exercised a right of termination or obtained a release from the landlord. No evidence was presented to show that any of the damage occurred after the tenant vacated. I have therefore found the tenants jointly liable. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has largely been successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147672 — net $474.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning (stain removal	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning (stain removal
Replacement laundry basin	$448.50	Replacement laundry basin
Repairs to kitchen floor	$750.00	Repairs to kitchen floor
Water charges October-December 2024	$141.84	Water charges October-December 2024
Cleaning to kitchen floor	$57.50	Cleaning to kitchen floor
Replacement light	$109.25	Replacement light
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$474.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$474.09

Order

Simranjeet Singh and Kamal Kumar must pay Auckland Property Management Limited - as Agent for Bo Jiang $474.09 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,313.00 (5991514-004) to Auckland Property Management Limited - as Agent for Bo Jiang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 10 March 2024 and ended on 7 December 2024. On 27 January 2025 the landlord applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Tenant’s response to the claims
The tenant accepted the claim for water charges ($141.84) and a replacement ceiling light ($218.50).
The tenant accepted that the laundry basin had been damaged but said he could have fixed it for a better price. However, he was not allowed to re-enter the premises after the Tribunal terminated the tenancy.
A claim for wall repairs and replacement of a door-stop was disputed by the tenant who said the stop was missing at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant opposed the landlord’s claim for cleaning and repairs caused by the spillage of ink from a rubbish bin onto the kitchen vinyl flooring. The tenant said the stain could have been removed with additional cleaning and/or it should have been possible to colour-match the flooring. This would have enabled a targeted repair rather than replacement of the entire floor. It was unfair that he was being asked to pay for all the flooring.
The tenant disputed the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. While there was a stain in one of the rooms, the tenant said he was being charged for carpet cleaning for the entire house. The tenant provided an email from the carpet cleaner which stated that their invoice of 18 December 2024 for $253.00 was for steam cleaning in 3 bedrooms, the living room and hallway. The invoice stated: “Carpet cleaning”.

Is the tenant liable for carpet cleaning?

The landlord provided a cleaning invoice dated 18 December 2024 for $253.00. This comprised a call out fee of $110.00 plus GST and “Stain Removal Services in the living area” of $110.00 plus GST. At the hearing the landlord said the invoice was issued after she spoke to the cleaners to confirm they had performed a stain removal in one room.
The tenant, as noted above, provided an invoice for carpet cleaning with the same date and price but a different description of the work, together with emails and photographs from the cleaning company. The cleaner seems to have photographed more than one room. The accompanying email states that they cleaned several rooms.
The landlord was permitted to present further evidence after the hearing to explain the discrepancy between the two invoices provided by the cleaning company. The landlord provided messages from the cleaners confirming that their invoice was for stain removal in the living room, together with the work order for removal of the living room stain only. The invoice for $253.00 reflects the cleaner’s current prices for stain removal, per stain.
Ultimately, whatever work was actually performed, I am not satisfied that the tenants are being asked to pay for more than the cost of stain removal in the living room. The pricing information indicates that the tenants would have been charged about $35.00 more if they had been charged for cleaning in 3 bedrooms. I award $253.00.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $750.00 which is less than 4 weeks’ rent.
It was not disputed by the tenants that the laundry basin was damaged during the tenancy. I understand the tenant’s view that he could have arranged a cheaper repair if he had been allowed to go back, but once a tenancy is terminated the tenant is required to leave (section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The cost of replacing the basin ($448.50) is less than the insurance excess and there is no evidence that this was not a reasonable price.
The tenant suggested that some of the parts for the basin were unnecessary, such as the pop-up waste and trap. The landlord’s photographs show that the crack probably went right through, so that the basin would leak. No evidence was presented to establish that any of the work performed or parts used were unnecessary.
As to the wall damage, the landlord’s ingoing inspection photographs do not appear to show the door-stop in place at the start of the tenancy. The door handle has been pushed against the wall and has caused a small mark or dent. The landlord submitted that it was careless to push the door against the wall.
I consider that the damage, which was minor, was not carelessly caused in the absence of a door-stop to prevent the door unintentionally hitting the wall. I decline to award the repair and replacement cost for the door-stop and wall repair. This cost was included in the invoice for the replacement light cover without separate itemisation ($218.50). It is necessary to make an apportionment on limited information. I award 50% of the invoice for the light cover ($109.25).
The landlord’s photographs show ink staining on the kitchen floor. A professional cleaning company attempted to remove the stain but were unable to do so. In their invoice they indicated that they could do nothing more without risking further damage. A flooring company unsuccessfully tried to find the same colour and thickness to use for repairs. The flooring had to be replaced at a total cost of $1,840.00 after adjustment by insurers.
The tenant said he would have been able to find the same flooring so that the damaged area could have been repaired. There was no evidence presented to support this and the advice from the flooring company was to the contrary. I am satisfied that a repair was not possible. The landlord has been forced to pay for replacement flooring earlier than would have been the case if it had not been stained.
The tenant is not being asked to pay for replacement of the entire floor: the tenants are only liable for the insurance excess of $750.00. I also award the unsuccessful attempt to clean the ink stain ($57.50) as this was a reasonable step to mitigate the loss. Joint liability
Although the tenancy ended in December 2024, one of the tenants said they left on 11 October 2024. The tenancy agreement provided for joint and several liability. No evidence was presented to show that the outgoing tenant exercised a right of termination or obtained a release from the landlord. No evidence was presented to show that any of the damage occurred after the tenant vacated. I have therefore found the tenants jointly liable. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has largely been successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147672 — Property damage at 11 McDougall Street, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147672 — Property damage at 11 McDougall Street, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for carpet cleaning?

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

Is the tenant liable for carpet cleaning?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions