What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5154611?

The tribunal order states: Patrica Valerie Hadfield must pay Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Rural

How much money was awarded in case 5154611?

Cleaning: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: Ensuite: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Cooktop: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Filters: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Oven: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Sink: $173.00 awarded to landlord; Unblocking Pump System: $1,253.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154611?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12084726-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5154611?

The tribunal order states: Patrica Valerie Hadfield must pay Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Rural

How much money was awarded in case 5154611?

Cleaning: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: Ensuite: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Cooktop: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Filters: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Oven: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Sink: $173.00 awarded to landlord; Unblocking Pump System: $1,253.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154611?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12084726-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

271B Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154611 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154611 — net $4,095.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls	$600.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: unblock sink	$173.00	Repairs: unblock sink
Repairs: unblocking pump system	$1,253.50	Repairs: unblocking pump system
Cleaning	$900.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$529.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$900.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: oven	$600.00	Repairs: oven
Repairs: cooktop	$253.00	Repairs: cooktop
Window repairs	$1,035.00	Window repairs
Replace smoke alarms	$115.00	Replace smoke alarms
Lawns and garden work	$30.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs: heat pump filters	$287.50	Repairs: heat pump filters
Carpet: ensuite	$632.50	Carpet: ensuite
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,095.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,095.50

Mr Singh represented the landlord at the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, 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 tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal and ended on 10 January 2025. At the end of the tenancy the tenant left a large amount of rubbish and belongings of no value throughout the premises. No cleaning had been undertaken and there was damage to the premises. Cleaning the premises was required including carpets which were substantially soiled in some rooms. The tenant had also removed two smoke alarms and two filters for a heat pump. A sink, a toilet and the pump system for sewage and grey water all required unblocking.

The landlord is claiming the following amounts for the above cleaning and associated work: a. Unblock sink: $173.00 b. Unblock pump: $1,253.50 c. Cleaning: $1,293.75 d. Carpet clean: $529.00 e. Rubbish removal: $2,760.00 f. 2 smoke alarms: $115.00 g. Lawns: $92.00 h. 2 heat pump filters: $287.50

The landlord produced photographs and invoices in support of his oral submissions.

When I refer to the information produced in support of the claims for rubbish removal, cleaning and lawns, I consider the claims to be very high. The photographs show the lawn to be approximately three metres by four metres, and even with the grass being somewhat overgrown, I estimate it would have only taken a few minutes to cut and collect the grass. The same maintenance company was used for the majority of the work, so no separate callout fee would have been necessary for each job. I do not consider it reasonable to charge $92.00 to the tenant for this work. The rubbish collection costs are not broken down to show time and quantity of rubbish being dumped. I consider the amount claimed to be well in excess of what is reasonable for the amount of rubbish shown. In awarding an amount for cleaning I take into consideration that the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and a landlord will usually complete a deep clean which goes well beyond reasonably clean and tidy, at their own expense between tenancies. I have adjusted the amounts awarded to reflect these considerations.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

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 landlord provided oral submissions, invoices and photographs in support of the following claims from the end of the tenancy: a. Wall damage: $2,070.00 b. The oven was burnt and needed replacing: $920.00 c. Cooktop plates: $253.00 d. Broken double glazed window: $1,035.00 e. Ensuite carpet burnt: $1,265.00.

The landlord stated the premises were brand new approximately four years ago, and this is the second tenancy in this property. The photographs from the start of tenancy inspection show the property to be in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy.

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.

I have adjusted the award for the oven and ensuite carpet according to their expected lifespan as listed in the IRD Depreciation Schedule, IR265.

The landlord stated that the cooktop plates could not be replaced so the complete unit was replaced. The landlord did not charge the full replacement cost or the installation cost, but just the amount that had been quoted to replace the hobs. This is therefore awarded in full.

The window repair is awarded in full.

The photographs in support of the repairs to the walls show three medium holes in the ensuite, and two further holes and a dent to the walls in the bedrooms. Other bumps and scrapes which amount to fair wear and tear are evident on the walls. I consider the claim far exceeds the reasonable repair costs for the careless/ intentional damage and I have reduced the award accordingly. I have also taken into account betterment.

The awards cover damage that exceeds fair wear and tear and for which the tenant has not disproved liability.

I consider the damage to be a combination of careless and intentional damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Rural Home Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154611 — net $4,095.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls	$600.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: unblock sink	$173.00	Repairs: unblock sink
Repairs: unblocking pump system	$1,253.50	Repairs: unblocking pump system
Cleaning	$900.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$529.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$900.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: oven	$600.00	Repairs: oven
Repairs: cooktop	$253.00	Repairs: cooktop
Window repairs	$1,035.00	Window repairs
Replace smoke alarms	$115.00	Replace smoke alarms
Lawns and garden work	$30.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs: heat pump filters	$287.50	Repairs: heat pump filters
Carpet: ensuite	$632.50	Carpet: ensuite
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,095.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,095.50

Order

Patrica Valerie Hadfield must pay Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Rural Home Limited $4,095.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,240.00 (6427355-007) to Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Rural Home Limited immediately.

Reasons

Mr Singh represented the landlord at the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, 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 tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal and ended on 10 January 2025. At the end of the tenancy the tenant left a large amount of rubbish and belongings of no value throughout the premises. No cleaning had been undertaken and there was damage to the premises. Cleaning the premises was required including carpets which were substantially soiled in some rooms. The tenant had also removed two smoke alarms and two filters for a heat pump. A sink, a toilet and the pump system for sewage and grey water all required unblocking.
The landlord is claiming the following amounts for the above cleaning and associated work: a. Unblock sink: $173.00 b. Unblock pump: $1,253.50 c. Cleaning: $1,293.75 d. Carpet clean: $529.00 e. Rubbish removal: $2,760.00 f. 2 smoke alarms: $115.00 g. Lawns: $92.00 h. 2 heat pump filters: $287.50
The landlord produced photographs and invoices in support of his oral submissions.
When I refer to the information produced in support of the claims for rubbish removal, cleaning and lawns, I consider the claims to be very high. The photographs show the lawn to be approximately three metres by four metres, and even with the grass being somewhat overgrown, I estimate it would have only taken a few minutes to cut and collect the grass. The same maintenance company was used for the majority of the work, so no separate callout fee would have been necessary for each job. I do not consider it reasonable to charge $92.00 to the tenant for this work. The rubbish collection costs are not broken down to show time and quantity of rubbish being dumped. I consider the amount claimed to be well in excess of what is reasonable for the amount of rubbish shown. In awarding an amount for cleaning I take into consideration that the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and a landlord will usually complete a deep clean which goes well beyond reasonably clean and tidy, at their own expense between tenancies. I have adjusted the amounts awarded to reflect these considerations.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 landlord provided oral submissions, invoices and photographs in support of the following claims from the end of the tenancy: a. Wall damage: $2,070.00 b. The oven was burnt and needed replacing: $920.00 c. Cooktop plates: $253.00 d. Broken double glazed window: $1,035.00 e. Ensuite carpet burnt: $1,265.00.
The landlord stated the premises were brand new approximately four years ago, and this is the second tenancy in this property. The photographs from the start of tenancy inspection show the property to be in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy.
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.
I have adjusted the award for the oven and ensuite carpet according to their expected lifespan as listed in the IRD Depreciation Schedule, IR265.
The landlord stated that the cooktop plates could not be replaced so the complete unit was replaced. The landlord did not charge the full replacement cost or the installation cost, but just the amount that had been quoted to replace the hobs. This is therefore awarded in full.
The window repair is awarded in full.
The photographs in support of the repairs to the walls show three medium holes in the ensuite, and two further holes and a dent to the walls in the bedrooms. Other bumps and scrapes which amount to fair wear and tear are evident on the walls. I consider the claim far exceeds the reasonable repair costs for the careless/ intentional damage and I have reduced the award accordingly. I have also taken into account betterment.
The awards cover damage that exceeds fair wear and tear and for which the tenant has not disproved liability.
I consider the damage to be a combination of careless and intentional damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Rural Home Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154611 — Property damage at 271B Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154611 — Property damage at 271B Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

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