What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4412104 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4412104?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Outside Wall Replaced And Painted: $840.20 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4412104 D…: $2,478.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4412104?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4412104?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9344587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4412104 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4412104?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Outside Wall Replaced And Painted: $840.20 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4412104 D…: $2,478.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4412104?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4412104?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9344587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

50 Addington Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4412104 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4412104 — net $5,338.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4412104 dated 20/02/2023	$2,478.27	Previous order application 4412104 dated 20/02/2023
Replace furnishings: Carpet removal and replacement	$1,300.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet removal and replacement
Repairs holes and repaint	$1,850.00	Repairs holes and repaint
Outside wall replaced and painted	$840.20	Outside wall replaced and painted
Rubbish removal	$650.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,338.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,338.91

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jessica Moetu Ripeka Tahere and Harpreet Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $5,338.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 20 February 2023 under this same application number [4412104]

Reasons

On the 20 February 2023 I awarded the landlord rent arrears and released the bond to the landlord to be applied to the rent arrears. The landlord has now received the bond and the amount of rent arrears owing as per my order of the 20 February 2023 is $2478.27. I adjourned the rest of the landlord’s claims to a further hearing. The hearing has been delayed because the landlord has been overseas.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Only the landlord attended today’s hearing which was held by telephone. The tenants were called but none of the calls were answered.
The landlord has applied for the following: a) Carpet replacement, uplift and removal costs $4694.30 b) Repairing interior walls and repainting $3700.00 c) Repairing outside walls and repainting $840.20 d) Removal of tenants’ belongings left at property and dumping costs. e) Lawn and gardens. (d and e together amount to $960.00)

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. .
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all their belongings and rubbish at the property. I am satisfied that the belongings left at the property were of no value and that the landlord incurred costs in removal and dumping of the rubbish and belongings.
I am also satisfied that the tenants did not leave the lawns and gardens in a reasonably tidy condition.
The landlord sought $960.00 for rubbish removal dumping costs and lawn and garden maintenance. I am satisfied that the landlord had to remove and dump large bulky items of furniture which can be difficult and expensive to dump.
The landlord has claimed the cost of removing tree branches as part of this cost. Tree pruning is a landlord’s obligation, not the tenant’s obligation and I have therefore reduced the sum awarded to the landlord to $750.00.
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. The carpet and paint work
The landlord claims that the tenant allowed their dog inside in the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not see the dog inside the property but says that the damage inside the property shows that the sog was allowed in the property. He says that the carpet smelt of urine, there were soil stains on the carpet, and that the paint work on the inside showed chew marks on the windowsills and rub marks at the dogs height throughout the paintwork.
The landlord did not submit any photographs taken before the tenancy began which would have shown me the condition of the carpet and walls before the tenancy contrasted with what the property looked like at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence from a carpet cleaner who says that the carpet was soiled and smelt of dog urine. When the carpet was uplifted in a bedroom there was evidence of a liquid having gone through the carpet and the underlay to stain the floorboards underneath. The landlord says this is dog urine. The landlord says that the tenants’ dog must have caused it as none of his other tenants have had dogs.
The landlord has owned the property since 2019. He produced photographs of the listing for that sale, which show the carpet in excellent condition. The landlord understands that the carpet was near new in 2019.
It is difficult when there are no photographs of the carpet before and after for the Tribunal to assess the nature and extent of the damage.
I am satisfied that there was some damage to the carpet and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the carpet needed replacing in the bedroom, where the staining has permeated the carpet to the floor. I have therefore awarded the landlord $1300.00 as compensation for the carpet.
I am satisfied that there were holes in the walls caused by the tenants and that it is likely that the tenants’ dog caused damage to the paintwork from rubbing against the paintwork. I have taken into account the age and condition of the paint work and have awarded the landlord one half of the costs claimed. The outside wall.
I am satisfied that the tenants’ dog chewed the outside wall which required replacement and painting and have awarded the landlord this cost. Depreciation and betterment
I have considered betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. And awarded name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4412104 — net $5,338.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4412104 dated 20/02/2023	$2,478.27	Previous order application 4412104 dated 20/02/2023
Replace furnishings: Carpet removal and replacement	$1,300.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet removal and replacement
Repairs holes and repaint	$1,850.00	Repairs holes and repaint
Outside wall replaced and painted	$840.20	Outside wall replaced and painted
Rubbish removal	$650.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,338.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,338.91

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jessica Moetu Ripeka Tahere and Harpreet Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $5,338.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 20 February 2023 under this same application number [4412104]

Reasons

On the 20 February 2023 I awarded the landlord rent arrears and released the bond to the landlord to be applied to the rent arrears. The landlord has now received the bond and the amount of rent arrears owing as per my order of the 20 February 2023 is $2478.27. I adjourned the rest of the landlord’s claims to a further hearing. The hearing has been delayed because the landlord has been overseas.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Only the landlord attended today’s hearing which was held by telephone. The tenants were called but none of the calls were answered.
The landlord has applied for the following: a) Carpet replacement, uplift and removal costs $4694.30 b) Repairing interior walls and repainting $3700.00 c) Repairing outside walls and repainting $840.20 d) Removal of tenants’ belongings left at property and dumping costs. e) Lawn and gardens. (d and e together amount to $960.00)

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. .
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all their belongings and rubbish at the property. I am satisfied that the belongings left at the property were of no value and that the landlord incurred costs in removal and dumping of the rubbish and belongings.
I am also satisfied that the tenants did not leave the lawns and gardens in a reasonably tidy condition.
The landlord sought $960.00 for rubbish removal dumping costs and lawn and garden maintenance. I am satisfied that the landlord had to remove and dump large bulky items of furniture which can be difficult and expensive to dump.
The landlord has claimed the cost of removing tree branches as part of this cost. Tree pruning is a landlord’s obligation, not the tenant’s obligation and I have therefore reduced the sum awarded to the landlord to $750.00.
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. The carpet and paint work
The landlord claims that the tenant allowed their dog inside in the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord did not see the dog inside the property but says that the damage inside the property shows that the sog was allowed in the property. He says that the carpet smelt of urine, there were soil stains on the carpet, and that the paint work on the inside showed chew marks on the windowsills and rub marks at the dogs height throughout the paintwork.
The landlord did not submit any photographs taken before the tenancy began which would have shown me the condition of the carpet and walls before the tenancy contrasted with what the property looked like at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence from a carpet cleaner who says that the carpet was soiled and smelt of dog urine. When the carpet was uplifted in a bedroom there was evidence of a liquid having gone through the carpet and the underlay to stain the floorboards underneath. The landlord says this is dog urine. The landlord says that the tenants’ dog must have caused it as none of his other tenants have had dogs.
The landlord has owned the property since 2019. He produced photographs of the listing for that sale, which show the carpet in excellent condition. The landlord understands that the carpet was near new in 2019.
It is difficult when there are no photographs of the carpet before and after for the Tribunal to assess the nature and extent of the damage.
I am satisfied that there was some damage to the carpet and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the carpet needed replacing in the bedroom, where the staining has permeated the carpet to the floor. I have therefore awarded the landlord $1300.00 as compensation for the carpet.
I am satisfied that there were holes in the walls caused by the tenants and that it is likely that the tenants’ dog caused damage to the paintwork from rubbing against the paintwork. I have taken into account the age and condition of the paint work and have awarded the landlord one half of the costs claimed. The outside wall.
I am satisfied that the tenants’ dog chewed the outside wall which required replacement and painting and have awarded the landlord this cost. Depreciation and betterment
I have considered betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. And awarded name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4412104 — Property damage at 50 Addington Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4412104 — Property damage at 50 Addington Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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