What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4529824?

The tribunal order states: Hayley Joy Thorne and Paige Emily Schutt must pay Rudy Petrus Blommestijn

How much money was awarded in case 4529824?

Cleaning: $252.26 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $627.75 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: $602.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $392.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $536.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $344.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $51.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $786.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Bar Stools: $419.97 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet In Upstairs Bedroom: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $258.52 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $215.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4529824?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4529824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9537325-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4529824?

The tribunal order states: Hayley Joy Thorne and Paige Emily Schutt must pay Rudy Petrus Blommestijn

How much money was awarded in case 4529824?

Cleaning: $252.26 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $627.75 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: $602.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $392.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $536.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $344.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $51.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $786.47 awarded to landlord; Replace Bar Stools: $419.97 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet In Upstairs Bedroom: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $258.52 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $215.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4529824?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4529824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9537325-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Morus Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4529824 — Lost Rent

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4529824 — net $5,007.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$215.83	Water rates
Cleaning (includes cost of replacement doormat	$627.75	Cleaning (includes cost of replacement doormat
Carpet cleaning	$252.26	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$258.52	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$344.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement garage door remotes	$51.30	Replacement garage door remotes
Replace bar stools	$419.97	Replace bar stools
Lawns and garden work	$392.00	Lawns and garden work
Replace carpet in upstairs bedroom	$900.00	Replace carpet in upstairs bedroom
Repairs, plastering and painting	$786.47	Repairs, plastering and painting
Drain unblocking	$602.00	Drain unblocking
Compensation for lost rent	$2,800.00	Compensation for lost rent
Methamphetamine testing	$536.95	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,007.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,007.49

Only the landlord attended the hearing. He was assisted by his wife, Sonya Blommestijn. There was no appearance by either of the tenants.

The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

This was a tenancy of a brand new four-bedroom home in Massey. The tenancy began on 20 August 2022 for a fixed term to 20 February 2024, a period of 18 months. However the tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal dated 2 February 2023 in application number TT4433420 as the tenants had breached their obligations by having animals and pets at the property, damaging the property and not keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy.

At the hearing the landlord explained that the tenants did not in fact move out until 17 March 2023.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices totalling $215.83 (less fixed charges) 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, 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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

When the landlords finally gained access to the property they found that it had been left in an appalling condition. There was rubbish strewn throughout the entire house and outside and the floors and carpets were covered in dog and rabbit faeces, ground in food, felt tip pens, and in one bedroom what appears to be nail polish and dye. Tomato sauce had been sprayed on the walls. The lino was left covered in paint. The landlord produced photos showing that virtually every surface was left dirty and/or damaged.

I note at the outset the in almost all of the claims for compensation set out in this decision the landlord has sought to reduce costs as much as possible by purchasing any necessary items and then doing the work himself. In every case the amount charged for labour is very reasonable (particularly in respect of cleaning and rubbish removal which was extensive) and far less than usually charged by third party contractors.

The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning in the amount of $627.75 which includes labour of $600.00 and cleaning products (and new doormat) in the amount of $27.75. The landlord produced an invoice from Mire 10 Mega for the cleaning products and doormat. This claim is proved.

The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning in the amount of $252.26 being $100.00 for labour and $152.26 to hire a rug doctor. The landlord produced an invoice from Mitre 10 Mega for the rug doctor hireage and related costs. This claim is proved.

The landlord sought rubbish removal costs in the amount of $258.52 being Auckland Council rubbish bags and transfer station fees of $108.52 (and provided invoices) together with labour costs incurred by the landlord in the amount of $150.00. This claim is proved.

The landlord also seeks compensation for restoring the lawn. The tenants did not maintain this area and instead created a make-shift fire pit and the landlord produced photos showing the area. The landlord sought compensation of $392.00 for replacement soil and lawn seed together with labour $32.00 for lawn seed (invoice from Bunnings Warehouse), soil at a cost of $210 (invoice from Central Landscape Supplies) and labour of $150.00. This claim is proved.

The tenants did not return the keys to the side door or sliding door. The landlord sought compensation of $344.00 being locks in the amount of $244.00 (invoice from Lock Services Ltd in the amount of $159.00 and from Cobb the Cobbler in the amount of $85.00) together with labour in the amount of $100.00. This claim is proven.

The tenants did not return either of the garage door remotes. The landlord seeks compensation of $51.30 and provided an invoice for two remotes purchased from trademe. This claim is proved.

The doormat was missing at the end of the tenancy, as were three bar stools. The landlord provided an invoice for the doormat (included in the invoice for cleaning products above), photos of the original bar stools, together with documentation showing the cost of the replacement bar stools in the amount of $419.97. This claim is proved.

The landlord also sought compensation for a missing cupboard doorhandle but did not produce an invoice for the cost of replacement so I am unable to find this claim 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.

Despite being a brand new property at the start of the tenancy the landlords discovered a large amount of damage. The carpet in one of the bedrooms had to be replaced as the stains could not be removed by cleaning. There was damage to numerous walls, door frames, the exterior corner of the house. The landlord produced photos showing the damage.

The landlord produced copies of correspondence with their insurer showing that although some of the damage was technically covered by their insurance, a premium of $1,500 was to be applied for each and every instance of damage, which has meant that it has not been economical for them to claim against their policy.

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $900.00 from Premium Home Group Ltd for replacing the carpet in the bedroom. This claim is proven.

The landlord did all of the repairs and painting, and produced an invoice in the amount of $386.47 from Dulux for paint. The landlord also claimed $400 for labour, which I consider reasonable, a total of $786.47. This claim is proven.

The landlord also sought compensation for a bathroom cabinet, mirror and laundry tub. I accept that these were damaged during the tenancy. However as no invoices were provided to support these claims I am unable to find them proved.

The landlord also found that the drains had become blocked leading to what appears from the photos to be a serious and unsanitary overflow of waste outside. They produced an invoice for drain unblocking in the amount of $602.00 from Alpha Drain Unblocking. The invoice confirms that the “[b]lockage was caused by a build-up of sanitary items within the drain” and so I find the liability lies with the tenants. This claim is proved.

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. I do not consider that there is any basis to reduce the amounts claimed by the landlord as despite the awards of compensation the landlords is in some respects worse off particularly in respect of the carpet which still shows some stains. Compensation for early termination of fixed term tenancy

The landlord has not sought to enforce payment of rent for the fixed term. Instead the landlord says that they had no option but to seek to terminate the tenancy to prevent more damage, and that they lost approximately four weeks rent cleaning and repairing the property and finding a new tenant.

The landlord acknowledged that the tenant in fact continued to paid half of a weeks rent ($400) just before they left, and sought in effect three and a half weeks of additional rent being $2,800.00 in total. It is entirely foreseeable that the tenants’ actions would cause loss to the landlord. The compensation sought by the landlord is reasonable. This claim is proved.

The landlord also sought to recover the cost of methamphetamine testing. He says that he would not normally have done another test until the end of the tenancy but had to do a new test so that the levels would be known for new tenants. The cost of this first (composite) test was $332.25. However this test in fact showed methamphetamine contamination (above the NZ standard but below the Gluckman standard) which meant that further spot testing was required at a cost of $204.70. The landlord produced a report from the start of the tenancy showing no contamination. In the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be liable for the cost of both tests (total $536.95). This claim is proved.

The landlord has not sought the costs of methamphetamine decontamination although this has been carried out.

The landlord also sought to recover photocopying costs of $47.90 for the previous hearing terminating the tenancy. The Tribunal does not have the power to award costs (Section 102(1) RTA) except in very limited circumstances that do not exist here and so I make no order for photocopying costs.

Because Rudy Petrus Blommestijn has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4529824 — net $5,007.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$215.83	Water rates
Cleaning (includes cost of replacement doormat	$627.75	Cleaning (includes cost of replacement doormat
Carpet cleaning	$252.26	Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$258.52	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$344.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement garage door remotes	$51.30	Replacement garage door remotes
Replace bar stools	$419.97	Replace bar stools
Lawns and garden work	$392.00	Lawns and garden work
Replace carpet in upstairs bedroom	$900.00	Replace carpet in upstairs bedroom
Repairs, plastering and painting	$786.47	Repairs, plastering and painting
Drain unblocking	$602.00	Drain unblocking
Compensation for lost rent	$2,800.00	Compensation for lost rent
Methamphetamine testing	$536.95	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,007.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,007.49

Only the landlord attended the hearing. He was assisted by his wife, Sonya Blommestijn. There was no appearance by either of the tenants.

The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

At the hearing the landlord explained that the tenants did not in fact move out until 17 March 2023.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices totalling $215.83 (less fixed charges) which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenants did not return either of the garage door remotes. The landlord seeks compensation of $51.30 and provided an invoice for two remotes purchased from trademe. This claim is proved.

The landlord also sought compensation for a missing cupboard doorhandle but did not produce an invoice for the cost of replacement so I am unable to find this claim proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $900.00 from Premium Home Group Ltd for replacing the carpet in the bedroom. This claim is proven.

The landlord has not sought the costs of methamphetamine decontamination although this has been carried out.

Because Rudy Petrus Blommestijn has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4529824 — Lost Rent at 37 Morus Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4529824 — Lost Rent at 37 Morus Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

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