What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222011?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $4,800 (3463043-006) to the parties as

How much money was awarded in case 5222011?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb And Pet Door: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $248.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12309876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222011?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $4,800 (3463043-006) to the parties as

How much money was awarded in case 5222011?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb And Pet Door: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $248.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12309876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

117 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222011 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222011 — net $4,565.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,600.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$248.26	Water rates
Repairs: Door jamb and pet door	$368.00	Repairs: Door jamb and pet door
Repairs: Carpet	$322.00	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,565.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,565.26

Order

The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $4,800 (3463043-006) to the parties as set out below: JS Property Management Ltd$4,565.26 Nicholas Clegg$234.74

Reasons

The Landlord and Tenant entered into a tenancy agreement on 29 June 2024. The tenancy was for a fixed term of 12 months, and amongst other terms, the tenancy agreement allowed the Tenant to keep a dog.
Due to a change in personal circumstances, the Tenant asked to terminate the tenancy early. The Landlord found a replacement tenant, and the tenancy ended on 9 January 2025, with the new tenant moving in on 10 January 2025.
The Landlord now seeks to recover the following amounts: Rent arrears$3,600 Water rates arrears$248.26 Carpet cleaning$368 Re-letting fee$575 Cleaning$792.35 Rubbish disposal, door jamb repair and pet door replacement$552 Carpet repair$322 Carpet replacement$974 Filing fee$27
The Tenant did not attend the hearing. However, the Landlord provided emails that show that the Tenant does not dispute the claim for rent arrears or water rates arrears and agrees that those amounts should be deducted from the bond. Rent arrears
The Landlord has supplied a rent summary, which shows that the rent was in arrears by $3,600 at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord is entitled to recover the amount. Water rates
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, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 1
The evidence supplied by the Landlord – invoices from Watercare and its own internal records – shows that there are unpaid water charges of $248.26 directly attributable to the premises during the tenancy. The Landlord is entitled to recover that amount. Carpet and interior cleaning and rubbish removal
The Landlord incurred cleaning and rubbish removal costs before the end of the tenancy: 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 38(3) and (4) a.The carpet smelled of dog and was covered in dog hair at the end of the tenancy, and the Landlord paid $368 to Eco Home Services to clean the carpet on 8 January 2025. b.The Landlord paid $792.35 to Empire Cleaning Services for to clean the premises. Although the invoice does not record the date this work was performed, the Landlord advises that the cleaning occurred before the end of the tenancy. c. The Landlord paid $80 plus GST to Boss Build Ltd to remove rubbish on 9 January 2025.
The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2 Implicit in this requirement is that the assessment as to whether the premises are sufficiently clean and tidy must be made at the end of the tenancy, not during the tenancy. A Landlord cannot claim for cleaning or rubbish removal costs incurred by the Landlord before the tenancy ended without proof that there was a clear agreement between the parties that specific permission had been given by one to the other to carry out a particular act. 3
The tenancy had not ended when this cleaning and rubbish removal was performed. The Tenant had paid rent up to and including 9 January 2025 and, although the Tenant had moved out, he had not abandoned the premises. Indeed, the evidence shows that the Tenant (or at least one of the other occupiers) had been in the premises as recently as 5 January 2025 to perform cleaning and that the Tenant retained at least one key.
There is also no proof that the Tenant gave permission, explicit or implied, to the Landlord to enter the premises to perform this cleaning. In his correspondence with the Landlord, the Tenant disputed any liability for further cleaning, and nowhere does he authorise further cleaning at his expense.
The Landlord’s claim to recover these end of tenancy cleaning and rubbish removal costs must therefore be dismissed, as these costs were incurred before the end of the tenancy. Re-installation of the washing machine
The Landlord paid $80 plus GST to Boss Build to re-install the washing machine. The Tenant had used his own washing machine and left the Landlord’s washing machine in the basement and disconnected at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord is not entitled to recover this cost because the Tenant’s actions are not a breach of any of his obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(ii). 3 Kinley v Soames TT North Shore TT431/92, 17 November 1993 at 5-6. The Tenant’s obligation was to ensure that all chattels remained at the premises. 4 He complied with that obligation. Re-letting fee
A Landlord is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in re-letting premises where it accepts the early termination of a fixed term tenancy. 5 A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses must first provide an itemised account of those expenses to the tenant. 6
The Landlord has not provided an itemised invoice. Its invoice simply says:
That is insufficient to comply with the requirement that the invoice must be itemised. The Landlord’s claim for the re-letting fee is dismissed. Carpet replacement, carpet stain removal, door jamb repair and pet door replacement
There is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 7 However, a tenant can be liable where: a. the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and b. the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 8
This means that, as a starting point in any damages claim, the Landlord bears the onus of proving that it is more likely than not that there was damage, that the 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(e)(v). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(1) 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(2). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B. damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. Carpet replacement
The Landlord says that the carpet in the hallway connecting the house to the garage smelled strongly of dog. The Landlord paid to have the carpet cleaned by Eco Home Services, but the smell remained. The Landlord then paid $674 to Flooring First to purchase new carpet and underlay and $300 to CPT Men Ltd to install the carpet.
I heard evidence from Jason Peters, of JS Property Management. Mr Peters says that he experienced the smell, which is one of the reasons why the Landlord had the carpet cleaned by Eco Home Services on 8 January. Mr Peters says that the new tenants also complained about the smell.
I accept that evidence that the hallway smelled of dog. But I am not satisfied that this evidence is sufficient to conclude that the carpet was damaged to the extent that the Tenant ought to be liable.
The Landlord agreed to allow a dog to be kept at the premises, and presumably the rent included an allowance for the extra wear and tear that comes from keeping a dog – including that the premises may smell. I acknowledge that permitting a dog on the premises did not mean that the Landlord assumed all risk of damage. A landlord can reasonably be expected to be compensated for careless or intentional damage attributable to a pet (which can include a Tenant failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the pet from damaging the premises).
However, the Landlord did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any damage to the carpet was more than fair wear and tear due to the presence of the dog. For example, the photographs provided by the Landlord were inconclusive. There was no clear sign of any stains consistent with dog urine or any other visible sign of damage. Further, although there was evidence of a strong dog smell, there was no evidence from the professionals engaged by the Landlord - the carpet cleaner and the carpet layer - as to the condition of the carpet or the extent or possible cause of the smell.
As noted above, it is the Landlord who bears the onus of proving that the carpet was damaged, and that any damage exceeded fair wear and tear. I find that it has not done so, and I decline to order that the Tenant should be liable for the cost of replacing the carpet in the hallway. Carpet repair
The Landlord paid $322 to Carpet Repairs Ltd to replace a stained patch of carpet. Photographs provided by the Landlord show a red stain on the carpet in bedroom 3, which was not there at the start of the tenancy.
That stain is more than fair wear and tear. Someone has clearly spilled a substance on the carpet and there does not appear to have been any real effort to clean that stain. The Landlord was unable to remove the stain, so it paid to have the affected area replaced with a patch of carpet from a wardrobe. That was a reasonable repair.
The Landlord has insurance, with an excess of $400. The $322 cost of the repair is less than the insurance excess and the Landlord is entitled to recover that cost. Damaged door jamb and pet door
The Landlord paid $368 to Boss Build Ltd for the repair of a damaged bathroom door jamb and to replace the pet door in the front door and the incidental use of its vehicle. The Landlord is entitled to recover those costs.
The damage occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord has provided photographs from the start of the tenancy. Neither the door jamb nor pet door were damaged at that time. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show a large dent in the bottom of the door jamb and that a large part of the face of the pet door has been ripped off.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, in that the damage has not occurred due to the ordinary use of the bathroom door or pet door. The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover $368, which is less than the insurance excess. Although these costs were incurred before the end of the tenancy, the Landlord is entitled to recover them. The Landlord was entitled to repair the damage as soon as it was discovered and did not need to wait until the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
The Landlord has been substantially successful in its claim, so it is entitled to recover the filing fee. The Landlord did not seek name suppression, so no suppression orders are made. Release of bond
I direct the Bond Centre to release the bond as ordered at the start of this decision.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222011 — net $4,565.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,600.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$248.26	Water rates
Repairs: Door jamb and pet door	$368.00	Repairs: Door jamb and pet door
Repairs: Carpet	$322.00	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,565.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,565.26

Order

The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $4,800 (3463043-006) to the parties as set out below: JS Property Management Ltd$4,565.26 Nicholas Clegg$234.74

Reasons

The Landlord and Tenant entered into a tenancy agreement on 29 June 2024. The tenancy was for a fixed term of 12 months, and amongst other terms, the tenancy agreement allowed the Tenant to keep a dog.
Due to a change in personal circumstances, the Tenant asked to terminate the tenancy early. The Landlord found a replacement tenant, and the tenancy ended on 9 January 2025, with the new tenant moving in on 10 January 2025.
The Landlord now seeks to recover the following amounts: Rent arrears$3,600 Water rates arrears$248.26 Carpet cleaning$368 Re-letting fee$575 Cleaning$792.35 Rubbish disposal, door jamb repair and pet door replacement$552 Carpet repair$322 Carpet replacement$974 Filing fee$27
The Tenant did not attend the hearing. However, the Landlord provided emails that show that the Tenant does not dispute the claim for rent arrears or water rates arrears and agrees that those amounts should be deducted from the bond. Rent arrears
The Landlord has supplied a rent summary, which shows that the rent was in arrears by $3,600 at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord is entitled to recover the amount. Water rates
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, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 1
The evidence supplied by the Landlord – invoices from Watercare and its own internal records – shows that there are unpaid water charges of $248.26 directly attributable to the premises during the tenancy. The Landlord is entitled to recover that amount. Carpet and interior cleaning and rubbish removal
The Landlord incurred cleaning and rubbish removal costs before the end of the tenancy: 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 38(3) and (4) a.The carpet smelled of dog and was covered in dog hair at the end of the tenancy, and the Landlord paid $368 to Eco Home Services to clean the carpet on 8 January 2025. b.The Landlord paid $792.35 to Empire Cleaning Services for to clean the premises. Although the invoice does not record the date this work was performed, the Landlord advises that the cleaning occurred before the end of the tenancy. c. The Landlord paid $80 plus GST to Boss Build Ltd to remove rubbish on 9 January 2025.
The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2 Implicit in this requirement is that the assessment as to whether the premises are sufficiently clean and tidy must be made at the end of the tenancy, not during the tenancy. A Landlord cannot claim for cleaning or rubbish removal costs incurred by the Landlord before the tenancy ended without proof that there was a clear agreement between the parties that specific permission had been given by one to the other to carry out a particular act. 3
The tenancy had not ended when this cleaning and rubbish removal was performed. The Tenant had paid rent up to and including 9 January 2025 and, although the Tenant had moved out, he had not abandoned the premises. Indeed, the evidence shows that the Tenant (or at least one of the other occupiers) had been in the premises as recently as 5 January 2025 to perform cleaning and that the Tenant retained at least one key.
There is also no proof that the Tenant gave permission, explicit or implied, to the Landlord to enter the premises to perform this cleaning. In his correspondence with the Landlord, the Tenant disputed any liability for further cleaning, and nowhere does he authorise further cleaning at his expense.
The Landlord’s claim to recover these end of tenancy cleaning and rubbish removal costs must therefore be dismissed, as these costs were incurred before the end of the tenancy. Re-installation of the washing machine
The Landlord paid $80 plus GST to Boss Build to re-install the washing machine. The Tenant had used his own washing machine and left the Landlord’s washing machine in the basement and disconnected at the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord is not entitled to recover this cost because the Tenant’s actions are not a breach of any of his obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(ii). 3 Kinley v Soames TT North Shore TT431/92, 17 November 1993 at 5-6. The Tenant’s obligation was to ensure that all chattels remained at the premises. 4 He complied with that obligation. Re-letting fee
A Landlord is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in re-letting premises where it accepts the early termination of a fixed term tenancy. 5 A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses must first provide an itemised account of those expenses to the tenant. 6
The Landlord has not provided an itemised invoice. Its invoice simply says:
That is insufficient to comply with the requirement that the invoice must be itemised. The Landlord’s claim for the re-letting fee is dismissed. Carpet replacement, carpet stain removal, door jamb repair and pet door replacement
There is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 7 However, a tenant can be liable where: a. the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and b. the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 8
This means that, as a starting point in any damages claim, the Landlord bears the onus of proving that it is more likely than not that there was damage, that the 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(e)(v). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(1) 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(2). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B. damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage exceeded fair wear and tear. Carpet replacement
The Landlord says that the carpet in the hallway connecting the house to the garage smelled strongly of dog. The Landlord paid to have the carpet cleaned by Eco Home Services, but the smell remained. The Landlord then paid $674 to Flooring First to purchase new carpet and underlay and $300 to CPT Men Ltd to install the carpet.
I heard evidence from Jason Peters, of JS Property Management. Mr Peters says that he experienced the smell, which is one of the reasons why the Landlord had the carpet cleaned by Eco Home Services on 8 January. Mr Peters says that the new tenants also complained about the smell.
I accept that evidence that the hallway smelled of dog. But I am not satisfied that this evidence is sufficient to conclude that the carpet was damaged to the extent that the Tenant ought to be liable.
The Landlord agreed to allow a dog to be kept at the premises, and presumably the rent included an allowance for the extra wear and tear that comes from keeping a dog – including that the premises may smell. I acknowledge that permitting a dog on the premises did not mean that the Landlord assumed all risk of damage. A landlord can reasonably be expected to be compensated for careless or intentional damage attributable to a pet (which can include a Tenant failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the pet from damaging the premises).
However, the Landlord did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any damage to the carpet was more than fair wear and tear due to the presence of the dog. For example, the photographs provided by the Landlord were inconclusive. There was no clear sign of any stains consistent with dog urine or any other visible sign of damage. Further, although there was evidence of a strong dog smell, there was no evidence from the professionals engaged by the Landlord - the carpet cleaner and the carpet layer - as to the condition of the carpet or the extent or possible cause of the smell.
As noted above, it is the Landlord who bears the onus of proving that the carpet was damaged, and that any damage exceeded fair wear and tear. I find that it has not done so, and I decline to order that the Tenant should be liable for the cost of replacing the carpet in the hallway. Carpet repair
The Landlord paid $322 to Carpet Repairs Ltd to replace a stained patch of carpet. Photographs provided by the Landlord show a red stain on the carpet in bedroom 3, which was not there at the start of the tenancy.
That stain is more than fair wear and tear. Someone has clearly spilled a substance on the carpet and there does not appear to have been any real effort to clean that stain. The Landlord was unable to remove the stain, so it paid to have the affected area replaced with a patch of carpet from a wardrobe. That was a reasonable repair.
The Landlord has insurance, with an excess of $400. The $322 cost of the repair is less than the insurance excess and the Landlord is entitled to recover that cost. Damaged door jamb and pet door
The Landlord paid $368 to Boss Build Ltd for the repair of a damaged bathroom door jamb and to replace the pet door in the front door and the incidental use of its vehicle. The Landlord is entitled to recover those costs.
The damage occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord has provided photographs from the start of the tenancy. Neither the door jamb nor pet door were damaged at that time. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show a large dent in the bottom of the door jamb and that a large part of the face of the pet door has been ripped off.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, in that the damage has not occurred due to the ordinary use of the bathroom door or pet door. The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover $368, which is less than the insurance excess. Although these costs were incurred before the end of the tenancy, the Landlord is entitled to recover them. The Landlord was entitled to repair the damage as soon as it was discovered and did not need to wait until the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
The Landlord has been substantially successful in its claim, so it is entitled to recover the filing fee. The Landlord did not seek name suppression, so no suppression orders are made. Release of bond
I direct the Bond Centre to release the bond as ordered at the start of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222011 — Rent arrears at 117 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222011 — Rent arrears at 117 Shelly Beach Road, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions