What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4497221?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4497221?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4497221 D…: $2,160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $479.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $489.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,050.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,870.62 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $530.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4497221?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4497221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9388667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4497221?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4497221?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4497221 D…: $2,160.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $479.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $489.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,050.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,870.62 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $530.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4497221?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4497221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9388667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Harvard Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4497221 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4497221 — net $17,064.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4497221 dated 12/04/2023	$2,160.00	Previous order application 4497221 dated 12/04/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Rubbish removal	$530.71	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (with depreciation	$4,870.62	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (with depreciation
Window repairs	$184.00	Window repairs
Dishwasher replacement (with depreciation	$280.00	Dishwasher replacement (with depreciation
Oven replacement (with depreciation	$479.20	Oven replacement (with depreciation
Lock/key replacement	$489.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs for wall damage	$8,050.22	Repairs for wall damage
Net award	$17,064.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,064.19

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Sinead O'connor must pay Karen Mae Clark and David Clark $17,064.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 12 April 2023 under application 4497221

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application was part heard on 12 April 2023 and then adjourned to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide proper evidence in respect of all damage claims.
On 12 April 2023 I ordered release of the bond to the landlord and payment of outstanding rent arrears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the property at the conclusion of the tenancy. There was clear evidence of significant rubbish left behind by the tenant. The lawn was overgrown, and the property left in an unsatisfactory state.
The landlord also stated that the tenant changed the locks but failed to provide keys to these new locks. As a result, the landlord was forced to replace the locks to the front door, the door from hallway to garage, garage to outside and the lounge sliding door. Having sighted the payment receipt for the locksmith dated 6 April 2023 and the rubbish removal evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these costs.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims the following: a. Damage to carpet b. Window damage c. Dishwasher and oven damaged beyond repair d. Damage to landlord’s cell phone e. Damage to a number of doors f. Significant damage to walls and ceiling
The landlord has provided further evidence in respect of the damage caused by the tenant. There is clear evidence of damage to several areas of the property. The landlord claimed that the carpet was badly stained and damaged by dog urine. The true extent of the damage was not apparent until the carpet was lifted which showed how badly it had been affected. The landlord says the smell was overbearing. The carpet was only 6 months old at the start of the tenancy. The landlord says that the tenant kept two dogs at the premises leading to pet and urine smell throughout the house. There was no provision for pets within the tenancy agreement. I have sighted two invoices in support of the carpet claim.
The landlord also provided evidence of a damaged window which the tenant had been ordered to fix. The landlord claims that the tenant’s son damaged the window when he put a cricket bat through it. The tenant attempted to replace the glass herself however this was unsuccessful. The glass was the wrong size which resulted in the tenant placing gladwrap at the top in an attempt to cover the crack.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the dishwasher and oven. Both appliances were (on average) two years old and were not able to be repaired. The tenant flooded the dishwasher, and the oven door was broken. I have sighted photographic evidence of both appliances in support of this claim. I have also sighted the purchase receipt for the new items.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of extensive damage to the inside walls of the property. There was also evidence provided of damage to the ceiling. The repair work involved cleaning all walls and ceilings of food spills, dirt, grime and fly faeces. The holes needed to be cut out to enable these to be filled. All walls and ceilings required priming and painting with a total labour count of 80 hours. A detailed quote and expense claim was provided by the landlord in support of this claim.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The claim relating to the damaged cell phone is dismissed. While I accept the landlord’s explanation of this unfortunately, I cannot be satisfied on the evidence provided that the tenant is responsible for this.
I dismiss the claim for compensation relating to the Quinovic invoice for obtaining an eviction order. The application fee for an eviction order is automatically added to the debt payable by the tenant.
I must also dismiss the claim for door replacement and repair costs as no legitimate evidence has been filed in support of expenses incurred.
I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. In this case I have allowed depreciation of 20% in respect of the carpet, dishwasher and oven.
There is also no provision to award exemplary damages against the tenant in these circumstances.
On 12 April 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and release of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Karen Mae Clark, David Clark has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4497221 — net $17,064.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4497221 dated 12/04/2023	$2,160.00	Previous order application 4497221 dated 12/04/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Rubbish removal	$530.71	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (with depreciation	$4,870.62	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (with depreciation
Window repairs	$184.00	Window repairs
Dishwasher replacement (with depreciation	$280.00	Dishwasher replacement (with depreciation
Oven replacement (with depreciation	$479.20	Oven replacement (with depreciation
Lock/key replacement	$489.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs for wall damage	$8,050.22	Repairs for wall damage
Net award	$17,064.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,064.19

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Sinead O'connor must pay Karen Mae Clark and David Clark $17,064.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 12 April 2023 under application 4497221

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application was part heard on 12 April 2023 and then adjourned to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide proper evidence in respect of all damage claims.
On 12 April 2023 I ordered release of the bond to the landlord and payment of outstanding rent arrears.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the property at the conclusion of the tenancy. There was clear evidence of significant rubbish left behind by the tenant. The lawn was overgrown, and the property left in an unsatisfactory state.
The landlord also stated that the tenant changed the locks but failed to provide keys to these new locks. As a result, the landlord was forced to replace the locks to the front door, the door from hallway to garage, garage to outside and the lounge sliding door. Having sighted the payment receipt for the locksmith dated 6 April 2023 and the rubbish removal evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these costs.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims the following: a. Damage to carpet b. Window damage c. Dishwasher and oven damaged beyond repair d. Damage to landlord’s cell phone e. Damage to a number of doors f. Significant damage to walls and ceiling
The landlord has provided further evidence in respect of the damage caused by the tenant. There is clear evidence of damage to several areas of the property. The landlord claimed that the carpet was badly stained and damaged by dog urine. The true extent of the damage was not apparent until the carpet was lifted which showed how badly it had been affected. The landlord says the smell was overbearing. The carpet was only 6 months old at the start of the tenancy. The landlord says that the tenant kept two dogs at the premises leading to pet and urine smell throughout the house. There was no provision for pets within the tenancy agreement. I have sighted two invoices in support of the carpet claim.
The landlord also provided evidence of a damaged window which the tenant had been ordered to fix. The landlord claims that the tenant’s son damaged the window when he put a cricket bat through it. The tenant attempted to replace the glass herself however this was unsuccessful. The glass was the wrong size which resulted in the tenant placing gladwrap at the top in an attempt to cover the crack.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the dishwasher and oven. Both appliances were (on average) two years old and were not able to be repaired. The tenant flooded the dishwasher, and the oven door was broken. I have sighted photographic evidence of both appliances in support of this claim. I have also sighted the purchase receipt for the new items.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of extensive damage to the inside walls of the property. There was also evidence provided of damage to the ceiling. The repair work involved cleaning all walls and ceilings of food spills, dirt, grime and fly faeces. The holes needed to be cut out to enable these to be filled. All walls and ceilings required priming and painting with a total labour count of 80 hours. A detailed quote and expense claim was provided by the landlord in support of this claim.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The claim relating to the damaged cell phone is dismissed. While I accept the landlord’s explanation of this unfortunately, I cannot be satisfied on the evidence provided that the tenant is responsible for this.
I dismiss the claim for compensation relating to the Quinovic invoice for obtaining an eviction order. The application fee for an eviction order is automatically added to the debt payable by the tenant.
I must also dismiss the claim for door replacement and repair costs as no legitimate evidence has been filed in support of expenses incurred.
I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. In this case I have allowed depreciation of 20% in respect of the carpet, dishwasher and oven.
There is also no provision to award exemplary damages against the tenant in these circumstances.
On 12 April 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and release of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Karen Mae Clark, David Clark has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4497221 — Property damage at 5 Harvard Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4497221 — Property damage at 5 Harvard Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

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