What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5155191?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Kathryn Sutton and Mathieson John Sutton to pay Harper Property

How much money was awarded in case 5155191?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $935.71 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Hob: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $136.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954714-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5155191?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Kathryn Sutton and Mathieson John Sutton to pay Harper Property

How much money was awarded in case 5155191?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $935.71 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Hob: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $136.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155191?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954714-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 William Wallbank Crescent, Swanson, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155191 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

25 William Wallbank Crescent, Swanson, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155191 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155191 — net $2,449.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$935.71	Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Water rates	$136.66	Water rates
Repairs: painting	$450.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: hob	$750.00	Repairs: hob
Repairs: carpet	$150.00	Repairs: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,449.37
Bond	$3,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,449.37

Claims and awards for application 5155191 — net $2,449.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Amount: $935.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Water rates

Amount: $136.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: painting

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting

Repairs: hob

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: hob

Repairs: carpet

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: carpet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

Sasha Kathryn Sutton and Mathieson John Sutton to pay Harper Property Management Limited As Agent For Tracey & Jonathan Lee $2,449.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 (6238794-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Harper Property Management Limited As Agent For Tracey & Jonathan Lee: $2,449.37 Sasha Kathryn Sutton and Mathieson John Sutton: $650.63

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Hayward.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 December 2024. Both parties agree that at the end of the tenancy the tenants owed $935.71 for rent arrears and $136.66 for water invoices. The tenants stated that they didn’t make these payments because of the other disputes that were arising with the landlord.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord produced photographs that show some fly spots on the ceiling and wall, a windowsill that needed wiping down and other minor issues with cleanliness. The landlord also produced an invoice of $150.00 + GST for cleaning which they say was the minimum callout charge for the cleaner.
The tenants stated that at the end of the tenancy they hired a professional cleaner. However because the landlord was using a handyman to repair holes in the wall at this time, their cleaner spent a significant amount of the paid time cleaning up after the handyman and this impacted what was achieved for them.
It is not unusual for a landlord to conduct an end of tenancy clean to get the premises up to standard for the start of a new tenancy. This level of cleanliness is likely to be higher than is required from an outgoing tenant. When I look at the photographs, I can see the marks that the landlord raised. Some of the photographs focus on the dirt and don’t show the premises as a whole. Overall I do not see premises that have been left below a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
This claim is not 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.
Both parties agree that some damage to the walls, which exceeds fair wear and tear and amounts to carelessness, occurred during the tenancy. This includes a gouge in the wall caused by a washing basket, a hole in the baseboard in the bedroom and a nick in the garage. The tenant also accepts liability for repainting doors in the garage.
The landlord claims that other careless damage includes other damage to walls and the kitchen ceiling. The landlord produced photographs, most of which show work after the repairs but before repainting, and an invoice for $571.92.
The landlord also produced a receipt for repairs for fair wear and tear damage that they did not claim.
The tenants claim the discolouration from the kitchen ceiling was present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants also claim that they had planned to repair and repaint the walls before the end of the tenancy. However when the property manager attended with a handyman and the handyman gave a verbal quote of $200.00, they accepted this.
The landlord accepted that this quote was given but stated that the quote did not include the painting of the garage doors, and it was somewhat loose.
In my view the tenants are able to rely on the quote given by the landlord. Some of the damage to the paint included in the landlord’s claim is fair wear and tear, or is otherwise not damage that has been proved to have been caused by the tenant; for example the discolouration on the kitchen ceiling. Because of this I have reduced the award.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed insurance excess of $750.00 for damage to the kitchen hob. The tenants do not dispute this.
This claim is proved.
The landlord is also claiming $750.00 insurance excess for replacing the carpet downstairs, and $750.00 insurance excess for replacing the carpet upstairs.
The landlord stated that the carpet was five years old at the beginning of the tenancy. By the end of the tenancy the carpet was approximately six-and-a-half years old. The IR265 Depreciation Schedule lists carpet as having an eight year lifespan.
At the end of the tenancy, the carpet downstairs had extensive yellow/brown stains that the tenant says only appeared after they cleaned the carpet. The tenants stated that the previous tenants had kept two dogs downstairs and these dogs had urinated extensively on the carpet. At the beginning of their tenancy, the carpet had been covered in a thick layer of dog hair, and professional carpet cleaners treated the carpet twice to remove the odour of dog urine.
The tenants stated they cleaned the carpet because there were marks that they had caused, but the stains that occurred after they cleaned the carpet were not caused by them and only occurred after the cleaning.
The landlord accepted the previous tenants had kept dogs, and couldn’t comment on when the stains appeared because of the amount of the tenants’ belongings that had been present in the room during tenancy inspections.
I am not persuaded that the tenants caused this damage to the carpets. I believe it is probable the stains are the result of damage caused by the dogs from the previous tenancy.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord produced photographs that how the upstairs carpet has approximately six blue stains, approximately the size of a pea, and several small red stains.
The tenants accept that they caused the blue stains, but say the red stains had been present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord accepts there were stains to this carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, but says those stains were orange.
Whether or not the tenant caused the small red stains, I do not consider it reasonable to charge a tenant for the replacement cost, or full insurance excess, for a six-and-a-half year old carpet, which is in otherwise good condition, because of 6 – 10 small paint stains. Nonetheless I accept that the stains amount to a loss to the landlord, although I am not persuaded that this loss would amount to any pecuniary loss. I estimate the loss to be adequately compensated by an award of $150.00.
This amount is proved.
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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Harper Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155191 — net $2,449.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$935.71	Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Water rates	$136.66	Water rates
Repairs: painting	$450.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: hob	$750.00	Repairs: hob
Repairs: carpet	$150.00	Repairs: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,449.37
Bond	$3,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,449.37

Claims and awards for application 5155191 — net $2,449.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Amount: $935.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Water rates

Amount: $136.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: painting

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting

Repairs: hob

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: hob

Repairs: carpet

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: carpet

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

Sasha Kathryn Sutton and Mathieson John Sutton to pay Harper Property Management Limited As Agent For Tracey & Jonathan Lee $2,449.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 (6238794-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Harper Property Management Limited As Agent For Tracey & Jonathan Lee: $2,449.37 Sasha Kathryn Sutton and Mathieson John Sutton: $650.63

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Hayward.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 December 2024. Both parties agree that at the end of the tenancy the tenants owed $935.71 for rent arrears and $136.66 for water invoices. The tenants stated that they didn’t make these payments because of the other disputes that were arising with the landlord.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord produced photographs that show some fly spots on the ceiling and wall, a windowsill that needed wiping down and other minor issues with cleanliness. The landlord also produced an invoice of $150.00 + GST for cleaning which they say was the minimum callout charge for the cleaner.
The tenants stated that at the end of the tenancy they hired a professional cleaner. However because the landlord was using a handyman to repair holes in the wall at this time, their cleaner spent a significant amount of the paid time cleaning up after the handyman and this impacted what was achieved for them.
It is not unusual for a landlord to conduct an end of tenancy clean to get the premises up to standard for the start of a new tenancy. This level of cleanliness is likely to be higher than is required from an outgoing tenant. When I look at the photographs, I can see the marks that the landlord raised. Some of the photographs focus on the dirt and don’t show the premises as a whole. Overall I do not see premises that have been left below a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
This claim is not 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.
Both parties agree that some damage to the walls, which exceeds fair wear and tear and amounts to carelessness, occurred during the tenancy. This includes a gouge in the wall caused by a washing basket, a hole in the baseboard in the bedroom and a nick in the garage. The tenant also accepts liability for repainting doors in the garage.
The landlord claims that other careless damage includes other damage to walls and the kitchen ceiling. The landlord produced photographs, most of which show work after the repairs but before repainting, and an invoice for $571.92.
The landlord also produced a receipt for repairs for fair wear and tear damage that they did not claim.
The tenants claim the discolouration from the kitchen ceiling was present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants also claim that they had planned to repair and repaint the walls before the end of the tenancy. However when the property manager attended with a handyman and the handyman gave a verbal quote of $200.00, they accepted this.
The landlord accepted that this quote was given but stated that the quote did not include the painting of the garage doors, and it was somewhat loose.
In my view the tenants are able to rely on the quote given by the landlord. Some of the damage to the paint included in the landlord’s claim is fair wear and tear, or is otherwise not damage that has been proved to have been caused by the tenant; for example the discolouration on the kitchen ceiling. Because of this I have reduced the award.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed insurance excess of $750.00 for damage to the kitchen hob. The tenants do not dispute this.
This claim is proved.
The landlord is also claiming $750.00 insurance excess for replacing the carpet downstairs, and $750.00 insurance excess for replacing the carpet upstairs.
The landlord stated that the carpet was five years old at the beginning of the tenancy. By the end of the tenancy the carpet was approximately six-and-a-half years old. The IR265 Depreciation Schedule lists carpet as having an eight year lifespan.
At the end of the tenancy, the carpet downstairs had extensive yellow/brown stains that the tenant says only appeared after they cleaned the carpet. The tenants stated that the previous tenants had kept two dogs downstairs and these dogs had urinated extensively on the carpet. At the beginning of their tenancy, the carpet had been covered in a thick layer of dog hair, and professional carpet cleaners treated the carpet twice to remove the odour of dog urine.
The tenants stated they cleaned the carpet because there were marks that they had caused, but the stains that occurred after they cleaned the carpet were not caused by them and only occurred after the cleaning.
The landlord accepted the previous tenants had kept dogs, and couldn’t comment on when the stains appeared because of the amount of the tenants’ belongings that had been present in the room during tenancy inspections.
I am not persuaded that the tenants caused this damage to the carpets. I believe it is probable the stains are the result of damage caused by the dogs from the previous tenancy.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord produced photographs that how the upstairs carpet has approximately six blue stains, approximately the size of a pea, and several small red stains.
The tenants accept that they caused the blue stains, but say the red stains had been present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord accepts there were stains to this carpet at the beginning of the tenancy, but says those stains were orange.
Whether or not the tenant caused the small red stains, I do not consider it reasonable to charge a tenant for the replacement cost, or full insurance excess, for a six-and-a-half year old carpet, which is in otherwise good condition, because of 6 – 10 small paint stains. Nonetheless I accept that the stains amount to a loss to the landlord, although I am not persuaded that this loss would amount to any pecuniary loss. I estimate the loss to be adequately compensated by an award of $150.00.
This amount is proved.
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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Harper Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155191 — Property damage at 25 William Wallbank Crescent, Swanson, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155191 — Property damage at 25 William Wallbank Crescent, Swanson, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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