What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4438661?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4438661?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Tenant Belongings And Rub…: $1,593.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $507.72 awarded to landlord; Broken Windows: $1,203.54 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls, Cupboards And Doors: $2,421.90 awarded to landlord; Securing The Property Once Abandoned: $207.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4438661?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4438661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9408789-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4438661?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4438661?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Tenant Belongings And Rub…: $1,593.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $507.72 awarded to landlord; Broken Windows: $1,203.54 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls, Cupboards And Doors: $2,421.90 awarded to landlord; Securing The Property Once Abandoned: $207.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4438661?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4438661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9408789-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Longfellow Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4438661 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

34 Longfellow Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4438661 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4438661 — net $6,209.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 May 2022	$507.72	Rent arrears to 29 May 2022
Securing the property once abandoned	$207.11	Securing the property once abandoned
Repairs: broken windows	$1,203.54	Repairs: broken windows
Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors	$2,421.90	Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors
Cleaning interior of premises	$255.00	Cleaning interior of premises
Removal of tenant belongings and rubbish	$1,593.90	Removal of tenant belongings and rubbish
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,209.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,209.61

Claims and awards for application 4438661 — net $6,209.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 29 May 2022

Amount: $507.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 29 May 2022

Securing the property once abandoned

Amount: $207.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Securing the property once abandoned

Repairs: broken windows

Amount: $1,203.54
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: broken windows

Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors

Amount: $2,421.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors

Cleaning interior of premises

Amount: $255.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning interior of premises

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Selena Johnson must pay Regent Realty Limited trading as Harcourts Hawkes Bay as agent for Ju Qiang and Luhua Chen (the owners) $6,209.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
This hearing was previously adjourned for further service on the tenant to an address for service noted on the tenancy agreement. The application was sent to that address and returned to sender.
Having considered the above and heard further from the landlord I dispensed with the requirement for service and proceeded as if the notice of hearing or any other document had been served on the tenant in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) (see s 91B(2)(c) RTA).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 16 November 2019 and terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal on 16 May 2022. Following the Tribunal decision to terminate, the landlord agreed to allow the tenant to vacate the premises on 29 May 2022. The tenant did not pay the last 7.9 days of rent.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs from a post tenancy inspection and invoices supporting its claims.
The invoice for rubbish removal claims for four days skip hire. Having considered the photographs of the rubbish left behind, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all of their belongings and rubbish. The photographs show that the tenant left a significant amount of belongings and rubbish at the property and none of which appears to have any value. There is also general household rubbish. The amount claimed includes labour and waste disposal costs, and based on the evidence, is in my view reasonable, with the exception of the skip bin hire. I have awarded compensation to the landlord for two days skip bin hire rather than the four days claimed.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and several windows were broken throughout the property, including a windowpane in the front door. To properly secure the property in the short term, the landlord had the front door and windows boarded up.
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.
A significant number of windows, walls and cupboards were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Regent Realty Limited trading as Harcourts Hawkes Bay as agent for Ju Qiang and Luhua Chen (the owners) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 13 September 2023

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4438661 — net $6,209.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 May 2022	$507.72	Rent arrears to 29 May 2022
Securing the property once abandoned	$207.11	Securing the property once abandoned
Repairs: broken windows	$1,203.54	Repairs: broken windows
Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors	$2,421.90	Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors
Cleaning interior of premises	$255.00	Cleaning interior of premises
Removal of tenant belongings and rubbish	$1,593.90	Removal of tenant belongings and rubbish
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,209.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,209.61

Claims and awards for application 4438661 — net $6,209.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 29 May 2022

Amount: $507.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 29 May 2022

Securing the property once abandoned

Amount: $207.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Securing the property once abandoned

Repairs: broken windows

Amount: $1,203.54
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: broken windows

Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors

Amount: $2,421.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: holes in walls, cupboards and doors

Cleaning interior of premises

Amount: $255.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning interior of premises

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Selena Johnson must pay Regent Realty Limited trading as Harcourts Hawkes Bay as agent for Ju Qiang and Luhua Chen (the owners) $6,209.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
This hearing was previously adjourned for further service on the tenant to an address for service noted on the tenancy agreement. The application was sent to that address and returned to sender.
Having considered the above and heard further from the landlord I dispensed with the requirement for service and proceeded as if the notice of hearing or any other document had been served on the tenant in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) (see s 91B(2)(c) RTA).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 16 November 2019 and terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal on 16 May 2022. Following the Tribunal decision to terminate, the landlord agreed to allow the tenant to vacate the premises on 29 May 2022. The tenant did not pay the last 7.9 days of rent.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs from a post tenancy inspection and invoices supporting its claims.
The invoice for rubbish removal claims for four days skip hire. Having considered the photographs of the rubbish left behind, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all of their belongings and rubbish. The photographs show that the tenant left a significant amount of belongings and rubbish at the property and none of which appears to have any value. There is also general household rubbish. The amount claimed includes labour and waste disposal costs, and based on the evidence, is in my view reasonable, with the exception of the skip bin hire. I have awarded compensation to the landlord for two days skip bin hire rather than the four days claimed.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy and several windows were broken throughout the property, including a windowpane in the front door. To properly secure the property in the short term, the landlord had the front door and windows boarded up.
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.
A significant number of windows, walls and cupboards were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Regent Realty Limited trading as Harcourts Hawkes Bay as agent for Ju Qiang and Luhua Chen (the owners) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 13 September 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4438661 — Property damage at 34 Longfellow Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4438661 — Property damage at 34 Longfellow Avenue, Maraenui, Napier 4110

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions