What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5198253?

The tribunal order states: Tracy Marie Taite must pay Mog Limited t/a Angel Property Managers as

How much money was awarded in case 5198253?

Cleaning: $516.01 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5079814 D…: $2,187.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $455.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $965.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198253?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11916315-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5198253?

The tribunal order states: Tracy Marie Taite must pay Mog Limited t/a Angel Property Managers as

How much money was awarded in case 5198253?

Cleaning: $516.01 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5079814 D…: $2,187.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $455.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $965.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198253?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11916315-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1017 Manuka Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5198253 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198253 — net $6,906.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 17.1.25 to 29.1.25	$965.71	Rent arrears 17.1.25 to 29.1.25
Previous order application 5079814 dated 13/01/2025	$2,187.00	Previous order application 5079814 dated 13/01/2025
Insurance excess - door jamb repair	$400.00	Insurance excess - door jamb repair
Insurance excess – carpet replacement	$400.00	Insurance excess – carpet replacement
Cleaning	$516.01	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,200.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$455.60	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$230.00	Lawns and Garden work
Oven nob replacement	$75.65	Oven nob replacement
Wall repairs	$450.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,906.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,906.97

Order

Tracy Marie Taite must pay Mog Limited t/a Angel Property Managers as Agent for Julianne Diprose $6,906.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant did not attend and was unable to be contacted by telephone.
I note that the agreement and application state that the property manager is acting as agent for Ginko Trust Limited. No such limited liability company appears to exist. The agreement does not identify the trustees of the Ginko Trust but does give its address as c/- Peter Julieanne Diprose.
A previous Order of the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy dated 13 January 2025 (application 5079814) (“January Order”), names the owner as Julieanne Diprose. I adopt the same approach.
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?

The tenancy was ended on 16 January 2025 by the January Order. The rent arrears payable under the January Order are incorporated into this Order.
The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant refused to vacate and eviction was required. The tenant remained in occupation until 29 January 2025.
Section 60 RTA provides that, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.” The tenant is therefore responsible for rent until she vacated.
The landlord provided rent records prove the rent due for that period. Compensation claims
Much of the work on which the landlord’s compensation claims are based was undertaken and invoiced by Kauri Trading Ltd (“KTL”). That company is owned by Mr and Mrs Diprose and the Ginko Trust. Ms Diprose is the director.
Where, as here, the party seeking compensation and the person/ on whose work the compensation claim is based are closely related, caution is needed to ensure that the compensation claims are properly evidenced. The proof of loss comprises what are essentially self-generated invoices.
It would not be just or in line with mitigation principles for the owners to claim for their time through company invoices, if that would result in a higher cost to the tenant. The owners should be regarded as having done the work for which compensation is claimed, themselves. Awards of Compensation – principles
First, the Tribunal’s ability to award compensation is provided by s.77(2)(n) RTA under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “...to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”
Even if a breach of the tenant’s obligations is established, the landlord does not have an entitlement to an award of damages as of right 1 . However, where loss is proved to have resulted from the tenant’s breach, in most circumstances an award of compensation should be made.
It is the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the landlord that an award is intended to compensate for. That loss might be represented by the cost of repair or it might be by a lessening in value.
If the costs of repair exceeds the lessening in value, good reason should be shown to award the higher compensation amount. 2
Section48 RTA requires the Tribunal to have specific regard to a party’s obligation to , “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
In doing work on their premises, owners are acting in their capacity as landlords, not in whatever other professional/ trades roles they might otherwise spend their time. Hourly charges rates on which compensation is calculated should reflect that.
Provision of residential rental accommodation is a GST exempt activity, so landlords, in that capacity, cannot recover GST on claims for time expended.

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. 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 2 See for example Leisure Investments NZ Ltd. Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89
The landlord provided inspection photographs from the start and the end of the tenancy.
What those photographs show is that at the end of the tenancy a very large quantity of rubbish and goods was left by the tenant.
The landlord had to dispose of that material and should be compensated for the resulting loss.
The landlord claims compensation of $2,015.21 based on an invoice from KTL for that amount. The invoice includes dump fees for 4 x trips to the dump, 1 x electrical goods disposal fee, trailer hire, 28 hours labour @ $40.00 per hour plus GST and vehicle expenses of $300.00 plus GST.
Relying on the Tribunal’s experience of assessing many such claims, I am not persuaded that the approach taken by the landlord to remedying this breach of the tenant’s obligations, met the own obligation to “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The photographs and the dump receipts, showing that some 930kg of rubbish was taken to the dump, prove that the breach was substantial.
I have no direct evidence of the comparative cost of obtaining a skip and paying for labour to put the rubbish in it. I can say though that the Tribunal is used to seeing similar work carried out for a significantly lesser cost.
The compensation awarded is reduced from the sum claimed, to better align with what the Tribunal is accustomed to seeing as reasonable charges for such work.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the replacement cost as proved by the invoice provided.
Photographs prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy. Compensation is sought for the $516.01 cost of having p[professional cleaners clean the premises. That is an out of pocket loss to the landlord, caused by the tenant’s breach and compensation for that loss is awarded.
An additional $400.00 is claimed based on an invoice from KTL. It is not unusual for owners to spend some time at rented premises between tenancies doing “spruce up” work in addition to professional cleaning. Also looking at the entry photographs showing the condition of the premises when the tenancy began, it seems to me more likely than not that some of the cleaning work done addressed issues (eg. fly spots on ceiling/ light fittings) that were apparent when the tenancy began. The compensation claim for that additional cleaning by KTL is declined.
The lawns and grounds were not left reasonably clean and tidy. Mowing and tidying of the grounds was undertaken by a contractor at a cost of $230.00. The landlord should be compensated for that out of pocket cost.

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 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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord has provided evidence which proves that during the tenancy carpet was damaged to the extent that it needed to be replaced. The landlord brought an insurance claim which was accepted. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the $400.00 cost of the excess on that claim.
The evidence also proves that damage to a door and jamb were caused. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
An insurance claim was made and accepted for that damage. Again the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the excess paid.
Entry and exit photos show that during the tenancy some oven knobs went missing. In the absence of evidence from the tenant I must assume they were lost through the tenant’s carelessness. The landlord should be compensated for the replacement cost, which is proved by the invoice provided,
The entry and exit inspection photographs show that during the tenancy holes were caused to walls and a cupboard.
I am satisfied that the holes were caused during the tenancy and were more than fair wear and tear. The landlord should be compensated for the loss caused.
The entry inspection photographs show that there were many other patched holes in the walls when the tenancy began. Many appear to have been plastered but unpainted. Others are shown to be quite crudely covered. The existing condition of the premises and the attention given to the repair of previous such damage, should properly be taken onto account in assessing the compensation awarded.
The landlord claims compensation of $1,322.00 for the cost of repairing 3 holes in the premises. The claim is based on an invoice from KTL for that amount.
The invoice does not provide details of the hours spent on the work or at what hourly rate. GST is claimed (see above).
For the reasons already given, the Tribunal must assess the claim based on an assessment of the compensation that would be reasonable in the circumstances outlined.
Again, the Tribunal is familiar with similar work carried out in similar circumstances for a very much lesser cost (Kainga Ora contractors apply a fixed rate of around $90.00 per hole repair).
Compensation for the loss caused by the tenant’s breach is awarded but in an amount the Tribunal is accustomed to assessing as reasonable.
Because Mog Limited t/a Angel Property Managers has substantially succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198253 — net $6,906.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 17.1.25 to 29.1.25	$965.71	Rent arrears 17.1.25 to 29.1.25
Previous order application 5079814 dated 13/01/2025	$2,187.00	Previous order application 5079814 dated 13/01/2025
Insurance excess - door jamb repair	$400.00	Insurance excess - door jamb repair
Insurance excess – carpet replacement	$400.00	Insurance excess – carpet replacement
Cleaning	$516.01	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,200.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$455.60	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$230.00	Lawns and Garden work
Oven nob replacement	$75.65	Oven nob replacement
Wall repairs	$450.00	Wall repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,906.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,906.97

Order

Tracy Marie Taite must pay Mog Limited t/a Angel Property Managers as Agent for Julianne Diprose $6,906.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant did not attend and was unable to be contacted by telephone.
I note that the agreement and application state that the property manager is acting as agent for Ginko Trust Limited. No such limited liability company appears to exist. The agreement does not identify the trustees of the Ginko Trust but does give its address as c/- Peter Julieanne Diprose.
A previous Order of the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy dated 13 January 2025 (application 5079814) (“January Order”), names the owner as Julieanne Diprose. I adopt the same approach.
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?

The tenancy was ended on 16 January 2025 by the January Order. The rent arrears payable under the January Order are incorporated into this Order.
The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant refused to vacate and eviction was required. The tenant remained in occupation until 29 January 2025.
Section 60 RTA provides that, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.” The tenant is therefore responsible for rent until she vacated.
The landlord provided rent records prove the rent due for that period. Compensation claims
Much of the work on which the landlord’s compensation claims are based was undertaken and invoiced by Kauri Trading Ltd (“KTL”). That company is owned by Mr and Mrs Diprose and the Ginko Trust. Ms Diprose is the director.
Where, as here, the party seeking compensation and the person/ on whose work the compensation claim is based are closely related, caution is needed to ensure that the compensation claims are properly evidenced. The proof of loss comprises what are essentially self-generated invoices.
It would not be just or in line with mitigation principles for the owners to claim for their time through company invoices, if that would result in a higher cost to the tenant. The owners should be regarded as having done the work for which compensation is claimed, themselves. Awards of Compensation – principles
First, the Tribunal’s ability to award compensation is provided by s.77(2)(n) RTA under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “...to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”
Even if a breach of the tenant’s obligations is established, the landlord does not have an entitlement to an award of damages as of right 1 . However, where loss is proved to have resulted from the tenant’s breach, in most circumstances an award of compensation should be made.
It is the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the landlord that an award is intended to compensate for. That loss might be represented by the cost of repair or it might be by a lessening in value.
If the costs of repair exceeds the lessening in value, good reason should be shown to award the higher compensation amount. 2
Section48 RTA requires the Tribunal to have specific regard to a party’s obligation to , “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
In doing work on their premises, owners are acting in their capacity as landlords, not in whatever other professional/ trades roles they might otherwise spend their time. Hourly charges rates on which compensation is calculated should reflect that.
Provision of residential rental accommodation is a GST exempt activity, so landlords, in that capacity, cannot recover GST on claims for time expended.

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. 1 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 2 See for example Leisure Investments NZ Ltd. Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89
The landlord provided inspection photographs from the start and the end of the tenancy.
What those photographs show is that at the end of the tenancy a very large quantity of rubbish and goods was left by the tenant.
The landlord had to dispose of that material and should be compensated for the resulting loss.
The landlord claims compensation of $2,015.21 based on an invoice from KTL for that amount. The invoice includes dump fees for 4 x trips to the dump, 1 x electrical goods disposal fee, trailer hire, 28 hours labour @ $40.00 per hour plus GST and vehicle expenses of $300.00 plus GST.
Relying on the Tribunal’s experience of assessing many such claims, I am not persuaded that the approach taken by the landlord to remedying this breach of the tenant’s obligations, met the own obligation to “......take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The photographs and the dump receipts, showing that some 930kg of rubbish was taken to the dump, prove that the breach was substantial.
I have no direct evidence of the comparative cost of obtaining a skip and paying for labour to put the rubbish in it. I can say though that the Tribunal is used to seeing similar work carried out for a significantly lesser cost.
The compensation awarded is reduced from the sum claimed, to better align with what the Tribunal is accustomed to seeing as reasonable charges for such work.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the replacement cost as proved by the invoice provided.
Photographs prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy. Compensation is sought for the $516.01 cost of having p[professional cleaners clean the premises. That is an out of pocket loss to the landlord, caused by the tenant’s breach and compensation for that loss is awarded.
An additional $400.00 is claimed based on an invoice from KTL. It is not unusual for owners to spend some time at rented premises between tenancies doing “spruce up” work in addition to professional cleaning. Also looking at the entry photographs showing the condition of the premises when the tenancy began, it seems to me more likely than not that some of the cleaning work done addressed issues (eg. fly spots on ceiling/ light fittings) that were apparent when the tenancy began. The compensation claim for that additional cleaning by KTL is declined.
The lawns and grounds were not left reasonably clean and tidy. Mowing and tidying of the grounds was undertaken by a contractor at a cost of $230.00. The landlord should be compensated for that out of pocket cost.

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 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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord has provided evidence which proves that during the tenancy carpet was damaged to the extent that it needed to be replaced. The landlord brought an insurance claim which was accepted. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the $400.00 cost of the excess on that claim.
The evidence also proves that damage to a door and jamb were caused. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
An insurance claim was made and accepted for that damage. Again the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the excess paid.
Entry and exit photos show that during the tenancy some oven knobs went missing. In the absence of evidence from the tenant I must assume they were lost through the tenant’s carelessness. The landlord should be compensated for the replacement cost, which is proved by the invoice provided,
The entry and exit inspection photographs show that during the tenancy holes were caused to walls and a cupboard.
I am satisfied that the holes were caused during the tenancy and were more than fair wear and tear. The landlord should be compensated for the loss caused.
The entry inspection photographs show that there were many other patched holes in the walls when the tenancy began. Many appear to have been plastered but unpainted. Others are shown to be quite crudely covered. The existing condition of the premises and the attention given to the repair of previous such damage, should properly be taken onto account in assessing the compensation awarded.
The landlord claims compensation of $1,322.00 for the cost of repairing 3 holes in the premises. The claim is based on an invoice from KTL for that amount.
The invoice does not provide details of the hours spent on the work or at what hourly rate. GST is claimed (see above).
For the reasons already given, the Tribunal must assess the claim based on an assessment of the compensation that would be reasonable in the circumstances outlined.
Again, the Tribunal is familiar with similar work carried out in similar circumstances for a very much lesser cost (Kainga Ora contractors apply a fixed rate of around $90.00 per hole repair).
Compensation for the loss caused by the tenant’s breach is awarded but in an amount the Tribunal is accustomed to assessing as reasonable.
Because Mog Limited t/a Angel Property Managers has substantially succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198253 — Property damage at 1017 Manuka Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198253 — Property damage at 1017 Manuka Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions