What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244994?

The tribunal order states: CHERYL MOANA PAIKEA must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5244994?

Cleaning: $141.27 awarded to landlord; Plasterboard Patching: $788.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,883.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,649.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,039.11 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5,834.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12242221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244994?

The tribunal order states: CHERYL MOANA PAIKEA must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5244994?

Cleaning: $141.27 awarded to landlord; Plasterboard Patching: $788.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,883.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,649.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,039.11 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5,834.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12242221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53F Hall Avenue, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244994 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244994 — net $14,545.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 January 2025	$210.00	Rent arrears to 21 January 2025
Cleaning stove/oven	$141.27	Cleaning stove/oven
Rubbish removal	$5,834.58	Rubbish removal
Plasterboard patching	$788.05	Plasterboard patching
Window repairs	$3,883.00	Window repairs
Carpet replacement (depreciated	$2,649.75	Carpet replacement (depreciated
Door repairs	$1,039.11	Door repairs
Net award	$14,545.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,545.76

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Maturan-Abuid.

I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the service provisions set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

This was a social housing tenancy that started on 9 August 2023 and ended on 21 January 2025.

Ms Paikea was the sole named tenant on the tenancy agreement but lived at the property with her daughter and grandchildren. At some stage she left the property to move in with her partner, who is also living in a Kainga Ora tenancy.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records showing that arrears in the amount of $201.00 were owing at the end of the tenancy.

The amount claimed for rent is proved.

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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos showing the condition of the property.

The landlord claimed the sum of $141.27 to clean the stove which required a deep clean. The photos show that the stove was spotlessly clean at the start of the tenancy but heavily soiled by the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved.

The landlord claimed the sum of $5,834.58 for rubbish removal. The photos show large amounts of rubbish left strewn throughout the entire house including various household items (and a double/queen mattress), an enormous pile of rubbish outside and throughout the garden including multiple chairs, couches, and mattresses. A large number of black plastic rubbish bags, with rubbish spilling out, were piled up in the garden.

The amount claimed for rubbish removal is reasonable given the amount left behind. This claim is 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 and so Ms Paikea is liable for any damage caused by her daughter or grandchildren, even if she did not cause any of the damage herself. 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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 has claimed for the following damage: a. Plaster board patching - $788.05 b. Door repairs (various) - $1039.11 c. Window repairs (various) - $3883.00 d. Carpet replacement - $3533.00

The landlord provided photos of all the above damage. There were a large number of holes in multiple walls, various doors had been removed or had holes, the internal cables on the garage door were damaged, a considerable number of windows were broken, and the carpet was very heavily stained throughout.

I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was intentional.

The amounts claimed for plaster board patching, door repairs and window repairs are proved. No depreciation is required for those items as they should ordinarily last a long time.

Carpet has a shorter useful life and so depreciation must be considered. 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.

The landlord advised that the carpet had been replaced in January 2023 and so some depreciation should be applied.

The Inland Revenue IR265 general depreciation rates estimate the carpet has a useful life of eight years, but the carpet had to be replaced after only two years. It should have had a further six years of useful life. I have therefore ordered 6/8ths of the amount claimed for carpet replacement, and order compensation in the amount of $2,649.75. Filing fee

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244994 — net $14,545.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 January 2025	$210.00	Rent arrears to 21 January 2025
Cleaning stove/oven	$141.27	Cleaning stove/oven
Rubbish removal	$5,834.58	Rubbish removal
Plasterboard patching	$788.05	Plasterboard patching
Window repairs	$3,883.00	Window repairs
Carpet replacement (depreciated	$2,649.75	Carpet replacement (depreciated
Door repairs	$1,039.11	Door repairs
Net award	$14,545.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,545.76

Order

CHERYL MOANA PAIKEA must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $14,545.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Maturan-Abuid.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the service provisions set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
This was a social housing tenancy that started on 9 August 2023 and ended on 21 January 2025.
Ms Paikea was the sole named tenant on the tenancy agreement but lived at the property with her daughter and grandchildren. At some stage she left the property to move in with her partner, who is also living in a Kainga Ora tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records showing that arrears in the amount of $201.00 were owing at the end of the tenancy.
The amount claimed for rent is proved.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos showing the condition of the property.
The landlord claimed the sum of $141.27 to clean the stove which required a deep clean. The photos show that the stove was spotlessly clean at the start of the tenancy but heavily soiled by the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved.
The landlord claimed the sum of $5,834.58 for rubbish removal. The photos show large amounts of rubbish left strewn throughout the entire house including various household items (and a double/queen mattress), an enormous pile of rubbish outside and throughout the garden including multiple chairs, couches, and mattresses. A large number of black plastic rubbish bags, with rubbish spilling out, were piled up in the garden.
The amount claimed for rubbish removal is reasonable given the amount left behind. This claim is 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 and so Ms Paikea is liable for any damage caused by her daughter or grandchildren, even if she did not cause any of the damage herself. 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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 has claimed for the following damage: a. Plaster board patching - $788.05 b. Door repairs (various) - $1039.11 c. Window repairs (various) - $3883.00 d. Carpet replacement - $3533.00
The landlord provided photos of all the above damage. There were a large number of holes in multiple walls, various doors had been removed or had holes, the internal cables on the garage door were damaged, a considerable number of windows were broken, and the carpet was very heavily stained throughout.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was intentional.
The amounts claimed for plaster board patching, door repairs and window repairs are proved. No depreciation is required for those items as they should ordinarily last a long time.
Carpet has a shorter useful life and so depreciation must be considered. 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.
The landlord advised that the carpet had been replaced in January 2023 and so some depreciation should be applied.
The Inland Revenue IR265 general depreciation rates estimate the carpet has a useful life of eight years, but the carpet had to be replaced after only two years. It should have had a further six years of useful life. I have therefore ordered 6/8ths of the amount claimed for carpet replacement, and order compensation in the amount of $2,649.75. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244994 — Property damage at 53F Hall Avenue, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244994 — Property damage at 53F Hall Avenue, Mangere, Auckland 2022

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

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

Frequently asked questions