What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403428?

The tribunal order states: Amena Mousa Alkhlef must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,846.38

How much money was awarded in case 5403428?

Benchtop: $250.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $465.35 awarded to landlord; Holes: $174.79 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $81.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $553.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $179.25 awarded to landlord; Sink Unit: $1,141.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13221045-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403428?

The tribunal order states: Amena Mousa Alkhlef must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,846.38

How much money was awarded in case 5403428?

Benchtop: $250.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $465.35 awarded to landlord; Holes: $174.79 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $81.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $553.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $179.25 awarded to landlord; Sink Unit: $1,141.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13221045-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Kupe Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5403428 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403428 — net $2,846.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$465.35	Cleaning
Carpet replacement and repair	$81.94	Carpet replacement and repair
Holes	$174.79	Holes
Sink Unit	$1,141.50	Sink Unit
Benchtop	$250.55	Benchtop
Replacement Stove	$553.00	Replacement Stove
Rubbish removal	$179.25	Rubbish removal
Net award	$2,846.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,846.38

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not. The claim:

The applicant seeks vacated costs in the following amounts:

$465.35 for cleaning;

$174.79 for damage to walls and a shelf;

$92.00 for carpet replacement and repair;

$179.29 for rubbish removal;

$2,282.99 for replacement of a sink unit;

$501.09 for replacement of a benchtop unit; and

$553.00 for replacement of an oven.

Is the respondent liable for the rubbish removal and cleaning costs?

Section 40(1)(e)(iii) requires the tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and to remove all rubbish.

The photographs show that rubbish was left in various parts of the property and that the property was well short of the reasonably clean and tidy standard required.

Accordingly, these costs are awarded. Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the kitchen unit and the benchtop?

The kitchen costs sought by the applicant relate to the sink unit and benchtop at the tenancy address.

The applicant has provided photographs showing that these units were in reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs further show that the tenant installed tiling above these units. Those works caused damage to the sink unit and benchtop, and the damage could not be reinstated. The landlord therefore seeks the full replacement cost.

I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally damaged the sink unit and benchtop, in breach of section 40(2)(a).

However, the units appear to be extremely old, and I must account for betterment and depreciation. Although the items were likely fully depreciated, the landlord could reasonably have obtained further use from them had the damage not occurred.

In the circumstances, it is appropriate to award 50% of the claimed replacement costs, being $1141.50 and $250.55

Is the respondent liable for the oven replacement?

The applicant also seeks $553.00 for replacement of the oven.

The applicant states that the oven was replaced in 2024 and was therefore approximately one year old at the time of the damage. They say that the tenant removed the handle and, despite their best efforts, the oven could not be repaired, as the handle is necessary to open the oven safely.

The applicant has applied one year’s depreciation to the total cost of $632.50, based on an eight-year useful life in accordance with the IRD depreciation guide.

I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the oven in breach of section 40(2)(a) and is therefore liable for this cost.

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

The applicant has provided photographs showing that the walls were in sound condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy show multiple holes in the walls, most likely caused by impact damage. The photographs also show that a newly installed shelf had been removed.

Some of the holes appear to have been cut open. The landlord advises that the tenant undertook numerous renovations to the property, including the kitchen work referred to above, and the condition of the walls is consistent with those works.

I am satisfied that the damage to the walls and the removal of the shelf were caused by the tenant. I further find that the tenant breached section 40(2)(a) by causing intentional or careless damage in relation to these claims.

Accordingly, the amount is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement costs?

The applicant seeks $92.00 for replacement of the carpet in the entrance hallway.

The photographs show that the carpet has been marked, either by burning or by the application of some other substance, such that replacement is justified. The applicant calculated the replacement cost from a total of $131.11, depreciated over three years on the basis of a 10-year useful life.

I accept that replacement of the carpet is justified, as it was damaged either carelessly or intentionally in breach of section 40(2)(a). However, the IRD depreciation guide provides for an expected useful life of eight years for this type of carpet. Applying three years’ depreciation on that basis results in an award of $81.94. That amount is awarded.

The applicant also seeks $15.67 for carpet seam and tape repair. The photographs show a loose seam in one area of the carpet. There is no evidence to suggest that this damage was caused intentionally or carelessly. In this type of carpet, seam movement can commonly occur through ordinary use and is more accurately characterised as fair wear and tear, which is not the responsibility of the tenant.

That claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403428 — net $2,846.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$465.35	Cleaning
Carpet replacement and repair	$81.94	Carpet replacement and repair
Holes	$174.79	Holes
Sink Unit	$1,141.50	Sink Unit
Benchtop	$250.55	Benchtop
Replacement Stove	$553.00	Replacement Stove
Rubbish removal	$179.25	Rubbish removal
Net award	$2,846.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,846.38

Order

Amena Mousa Alkhlef must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,846.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not. The claim:
The applicant seeks vacated costs in the following amounts:
$465.35 for cleaning;
$174.79 for damage to walls and a shelf;
$92.00 for carpet replacement and repair;
$179.29 for rubbish removal;
$2,282.99 for replacement of a sink unit;
$501.09 for replacement of a benchtop unit; and
$553.00 for replacement of an oven.

Is the respondent liable for the rubbish removal and cleaning costs?

Section 40(1)(e)(iii) requires the tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and to remove all rubbish.
The photographs show that rubbish was left in various parts of the property and that the property was well short of the reasonably clean and tidy standard required.
Accordingly, these costs are awarded. Is the respondent liable for the replacement of the kitchen unit and the benchtop?
The kitchen costs sought by the applicant relate to the sink unit and benchtop at the tenancy address.
The applicant has provided photographs showing that these units were in reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs further show that the tenant installed tiling above these units. Those works caused damage to the sink unit and benchtop, and the damage could not be reinstated. The landlord therefore seeks the full replacement cost.
I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally damaged the sink unit and benchtop, in breach of section 40(2)(a).
However, the units appear to be extremely old, and I must account for betterment and depreciation. Although the items were likely fully depreciated, the landlord could reasonably have obtained further use from them had the damage not occurred.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate to award 50% of the claimed replacement costs, being $1141.50 and $250.55

Is the respondent liable for the oven replacement?

The applicant also seeks $553.00 for replacement of the oven.
The applicant states that the oven was replaced in 2024 and was therefore approximately one year old at the time of the damage. They say that the tenant removed the handle and, despite their best efforts, the oven could not be repaired, as the handle is necessary to open the oven safely.
The applicant has applied one year’s depreciation to the total cost of $632.50, based on an eight-year useful life in accordance with the IRD depreciation guide.
I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the oven in breach of section 40(2)(a) and is therefore liable for this cost.

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

The applicant has provided photographs showing that the walls were in sound condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy show multiple holes in the walls, most likely caused by impact damage. The photographs also show that a newly installed shelf had been removed.
Some of the holes appear to have been cut open. The landlord advises that the tenant undertook numerous renovations to the property, including the kitchen work referred to above, and the condition of the walls is consistent with those works.
I am satisfied that the damage to the walls and the removal of the shelf were caused by the tenant. I further find that the tenant breached section 40(2)(a) by causing intentional or careless damage in relation to these claims.
Accordingly, the amount is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement costs?

The applicant seeks $92.00 for replacement of the carpet in the entrance hallway.
The photographs show that the carpet has been marked, either by burning or by the application of some other substance, such that replacement is justified. The applicant calculated the replacement cost from a total of $131.11, depreciated over three years on the basis of a 10-year useful life.
I accept that replacement of the carpet is justified, as it was damaged either carelessly or intentionally in breach of section 40(2)(a). However, the IRD depreciation guide provides for an expected useful life of eight years for this type of carpet. Applying three years’ depreciation on that basis results in an award of $81.94. That amount is awarded.
The applicant also seeks $15.67 for carpet seam and tape repair. The photographs show a loose seam in one area of the carpet. There is no evidence to suggest that this damage was caused intentionally or carelessly. In this type of carpet, seam movement can commonly occur through ordinary use and is more accurately characterised as fair wear and tear, which is not the responsibility of the tenant.
That claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403428 — Property damage at 41 Kupe Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403428 — Property damage at 41 Kupe Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the rubbish removal and cleaning costs?

Is the respondent liable for the oven replacement?

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the respondent liable for the rubbish removal and cleaning costs?

Is the respondent liable for the oven replacement?

Is the respondent liable for the wall repair costs?

Is the tenant liable for the carpet replacement costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions