What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5390641?

The tribunal order states: Margiet Ann Kapea-Rangi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5390641?

Cleaning: $618.06 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $1,259.62 awarded to landlord; Replace missing external laundry doo…: $573.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390641?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13283810-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5390641?

The tribunal order states: Margiet Ann Kapea-Rangi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5390641?

Cleaning: $618.06 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $1,259.62 awarded to landlord; Replace missing external laundry doo…: $573.13 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390641?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13283810-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27C O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390641 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390641 — net $4,325.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$618.06	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Holes in walls	$1,259.62	Repairs: Holes in walls
Repairs: Replace missing external laundry door	$573.13	Repairs: Replace missing external laundry door
Lawns and Garden work: Grass slash and mow	$375.00	Lawns and Garden work: Grass slash and mow
Net award	$4,325.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,325.51

The landlord attended the hearing, which was held by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, following the end of the tenancy. The landlord waived its right to reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.

I am satisfied from the landlord’s photographs that significant cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord’s photograph’s support its claim that there was 12m³ of rubbish and belongings left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $1,970.52 for rubbish removal. I am not persuaded that the amount claimed is the reasonable cost of removing the rubbish. I find the reasonable cost to be $1,500.00. In making this determination I have considered the cost of a 12m³ skip bin delivered to site, the cost of labour to remove the rubbish from the house and place it in the bin, and travel costs for those doing the work to travel to the tenancy premises.

The grass had not been mown for a long time and was lush and lank. I am satisfied that the grass was so long that it is likely it would have to be slashed or cut with a weed eater before it could be mown. The landlord claims $500.00 for lawn work. However I am not persuaded that this is the reasonable cost to rectify the lawn. I find $375.00 is the reasonable cost for this work.

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.

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.

I find that multiple holes in walls were caused during the tenancy. The photographs determine that holes were caused in the kitchen, both entry/hallway areas, the living room, both bedrooms and the laundry. In addition, the laundry door, which is an external door, was missing. I find given the amount of holes in the walls that they were intentionally caused, with the exception of the hole in the laundry which I find is likely to be carelessly caused.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390641 — net $4,325.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$618.06	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,500.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Holes in walls	$1,259.62	Repairs: Holes in walls
Repairs: Replace missing external laundry door	$573.13	Repairs: Replace missing external laundry door
Lawns and Garden work: Grass slash and mow	$375.00	Lawns and Garden work: Grass slash and mow
Net award	$4,325.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,325.51

Order

Margiet Ann Kapea-Rangi must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $4,325.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was held by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, following the end of the tenancy. The landlord waived its right to reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
I am satisfied from the landlord’s photographs that significant cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s photograph’s support its claim that there was 12m³ of rubbish and belongings left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $1,970.52 for rubbish removal. I am not persuaded that the amount claimed is the reasonable cost of removing the rubbish. I find the reasonable cost to be $1,500.00. In making this determination I have considered the cost of a 12m³ skip bin delivered to site, the cost of labour to remove the rubbish from the house and place it in the bin, and travel costs for those doing the work to travel to the tenancy premises.
The grass had not been mown for a long time and was lush and lank. I am satisfied that the grass was so long that it is likely it would have to be slashed or cut with a weed eater before it could be mown. The landlord claims $500.00 for lawn work. However I am not persuaded that this is the reasonable cost to rectify the lawn. I find $375.00 is the reasonable cost for this work.
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.
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.
I find that multiple holes in walls were caused during the tenancy. The photographs determine that holes were caused in the kitchen, both entry/hallway areas, the living room, both bedrooms and the laundry. In addition, the laundry door, which is an external door, was missing. I find given the amount of holes in the walls that they were intentionally caused, with the exception of the hole in the laundry which I find is likely to be carelessly caused.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390641 — Property damage at 27C O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390641 — Property damage at 27C O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

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

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

Frequently asked questions