What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4435180 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 4435180?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,450.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blind: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4435180?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4435180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9434868-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4435180 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 4435180?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,450.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Blind: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4435180?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4435180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9434868-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4435180 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4435180 — net $13,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (insurance excess x13	$8,450.00	Repairs: (insurance excess x13
Rubbish removal	$4,500.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: blind	$450.00	Replace furnishings: blind
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,420.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tony King Bruce must pay [The landlord/s] $13,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [property managers].
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on 19 August 2022. At that time an order was made in favour of the landlord for rent arrears and water rates.
The landlord then filed an application for compensation after viewing the property and arranging an assessment by the owner’s insurer. As the application was made more than two months after the end of the tenancy the normal service rules no longer applied. An order was ultimately made dispensing with service on 10 May 2023.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant left behind an enormous amount of rubbish. The landlord produced photos showing rubbish left throughout the inside of the property including old couches, broken chests of drawers, mattresses and bed bases and various clothing and other items strewn about. The landlord also produced photos of the outside of the property showing a huge pile of rubbish, partly in black bags but mostly strewn across the lawn, including at least three mattresses. Further photos showed a number of old couches outside, plastic pallets and various miscellaneous items. There were additional photos showing an old trampoline and the body of a car.
The landlord produced an invoice for rubbish removal in the amount of $4,500. This is a large invoice for rubbish removal but given the quantity of rubbish I consider it to be reasonable.
The amount ordered 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. 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 damage found to the property at the end of the tenancy was extensive. The landlord produced both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos proving the damage. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Various windows and doors were broken; b. One room was completely covered in graffiti; c. There were various holes made in the walls; d. An outside door was missing; and e. The shower was so badly damaged it had to be replaced.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has claimed against their insurance for the cost of the damage, which was assessed at well over $40,000. The insurer has applied 13 separate excesses for the damage of $650 each, totalling $8,450. Each excess is far less than four weeks rent. I order payment of $8,450.
The landlord also sought compensation for three matters not covered by insurance.
The first claim was for compensation of $503.79 for the cost of three lightbulbs and shades. In my view, having reviewed the photos, the shades were already at the end of the useful life. The cost of replacing three lightbulbs would have been minimal and I was not provided with any invoice supporting this claim. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The second claim was for compensation for $309.09 for ceiling repairs. However it was not clear what damage this covered. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The third claim was for replacing a broken blind not covered by insurance. The landlord produced photos of the blind together with an invoice for a new blind in the amount of $488.00. The blinds were already two years old at the start of the tenancy so I have reduced the compensation to $450.00 to take into account 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.
As the landlord has been substantially successful in their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have made an order granting name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4435180 — net $13,420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (insurance excess x13	$8,450.00	Repairs: (insurance excess x13
Rubbish removal	$4,500.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: blind	$450.00	Replace furnishings: blind
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,420.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tony King Bruce must pay [The landlord/s] $13,420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [property managers].
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on 19 August 2022. At that time an order was made in favour of the landlord for rent arrears and water rates.
The landlord then filed an application for compensation after viewing the property and arranging an assessment by the owner’s insurer. As the application was made more than two months after the end of the tenancy the normal service rules no longer applied. An order was ultimately made dispensing with service on 10 May 2023.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant left behind an enormous amount of rubbish. The landlord produced photos showing rubbish left throughout the inside of the property including old couches, broken chests of drawers, mattresses and bed bases and various clothing and other items strewn about. The landlord also produced photos of the outside of the property showing a huge pile of rubbish, partly in black bags but mostly strewn across the lawn, including at least three mattresses. Further photos showed a number of old couches outside, plastic pallets and various miscellaneous items. There were additional photos showing an old trampoline and the body of a car.
The landlord produced an invoice for rubbish removal in the amount of $4,500. This is a large invoice for rubbish removal but given the quantity of rubbish I consider it to be reasonable.
The amount ordered 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. 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 damage found to the property at the end of the tenancy was extensive. The landlord produced both ingoing and outgoing inspection photos proving the damage. The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Various windows and doors were broken; b. One room was completely covered in graffiti; c. There were various holes made in the walls; d. An outside door was missing; and e. The shower was so badly damaged it had to be replaced.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has claimed against their insurance for the cost of the damage, which was assessed at well over $40,000. The insurer has applied 13 separate excesses for the damage of $650 each, totalling $8,450. Each excess is far less than four weeks rent. I order payment of $8,450.
The landlord also sought compensation for three matters not covered by insurance.
The first claim was for compensation of $503.79 for the cost of three lightbulbs and shades. In my view, having reviewed the photos, the shades were already at the end of the useful life. The cost of replacing three lightbulbs would have been minimal and I was not provided with any invoice supporting this claim. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The second claim was for compensation for $309.09 for ceiling repairs. However it was not clear what damage this covered. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The third claim was for replacing a broken blind not covered by insurance. The landlord produced photos of the blind together with an invoice for a new blind in the amount of $488.00. The blinds were already two years old at the start of the tenancy so I have reduced the compensation to $450.00 to take into account 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.
As the landlord has been substantially successful in their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have made an order granting name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4435180 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4435180 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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