What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4559989 about?

The tribunal order states: Uitiriai Kapeteni and Rosieann Kapeteni must pay the landlord $1,962.19

How much money was awarded in case 4559989?

Cleaning: $339.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; (Painting to cover felt marks on wal…: $2,185.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: (Curtain over s…: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559989?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9846531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4559989 about?

The tribunal order states: Uitiriai Kapeteni and Rosieann Kapeteni must pay the landlord $1,962.19

How much money was awarded in case 4559989?

Cleaning: $339.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; (Painting to cover felt marks on wal…: $2,185.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: (Curtain over s…: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559989?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9846531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4559989 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4559989 — net $1,962.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 23 March 2023	$1,700.00	Rent arrears (to 23 March 2023
Repairs: (Painting to cover felt marks on walls	$2,185.00	Repairs: (Painting to cover felt marks on walls
Carpet Cleaning: (Stain removal	$339.25	Carpet Cleaning: (Stain removal
Replace furnishings: (Curtain over sliding door	$517.50	Replace furnishings: (Curtain over sliding door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,962.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,962.19

Order

Uitiriai Kapeteni and Rosieann Kapeteni must pay the landlord $1,962.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
The tenants’ application for breach of the Health Home Standards is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs is dismissed.
Uitiriai Kapeteni and Rosieann Kapeteni must repay the $1,962.19 debt to the landlord as follows: a. $20.00 each week for 98 weeks, commencing on Friday 19th January 2024 and ending on 5 December 2025; and b. $2.19 to be paid on 12 December 2025, being the last repayment of the remainder of the debt.
If the tenant fails to pay the repayments in paragraph 5 within 2 working days of the due dates, the balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenants disputed the costs of the remedial work the landlord had carried out and stated they could have had the remedial work done at a third of that cost but the landlord denied them that opportunity, despite him having met their contractor at the premises one month after the tenancy ended. They also refuted the cleaning cost claim as they say they had the house professionally cleaned, had mowed the lawns the day before they vacated and that the house and yard was in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. They also claimed the photograph of the rubbish on top of the fridge was taken after they left and that they took their fridge and so the picture could not have been taken during the exit inspection.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants confirmed they had not paid the last two weeks rent, having agreed with the landlord the $1,700.00 could be deducted from the bond. This was so that money could be used to engage a professional cleaner to clean the house prior to 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 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 landlord argues the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The evidence the landlord provided to the Tribunal does not support his claim. It is therefore dismissed.

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 tenants argued that although their children had written on the walls and the curtain over the sliding door with felt pens and had caused the stains on the carpet during the tenancy, they should have been permitted to get their own contractors to remedy this damage as they had received quotes for a third of the cost being charged by the contractors used by the landlord. The tenants did not dispute the damage is more than fair wear and tear nor did they disprove liability for the damage.
The landlord is under no obligation to allow the tenants to make good the damage created during their tenancy after the tenancy has ended.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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. Breach of Healthy Home Standard
The tenant claimed in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards. They referred to a room that had mould. They acknowledged that there was a heat pump in the lounge, a rangehood in the kitchen and an extractor fan in the bathroom.
There was insufficient evidence produced to support a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards and therefore that claim is dismissed. Bond
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenants paid a bond of $2,800.00 which was lodged with the Bond Centre.
When the tenancy ended on 23 March 2023 the tenants agreed to deduct the rent arrears owed. The landlord texted the amount owed to the tenant. It seems that the landlord did not provide the tenant with a rent summary until 27 April 2023.
The rent summary records that $1,700.00 was owed for rent arrears and the tenants agree that this amount should have been deducted from the bond money.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord emailed a bond refund form to the tenant for them to sign. The form is blank where it should have the amounts that each party is to receive. The only instructions given to the tenants in the email are to sign the same signature as used in the bond lodgement form. The tenants say that at the time they trusted the landlord.
A follow up email from the landlord was sent on 27 March 2023 reminding the tenants to sign the form.
On 28 and 29 March 2023 the tenants signed the blank refund form and returned it to the landlord.
The landlord claimed the bond money from the Bond Centre. Instead of the landlord receiving $1,700.00 of the $2,800.00 bond the total bond has been released to the landlord, without the tenant’s agreement and therefore the bond refund was in dispute.
The tenant’s evidence is that she tried to contact the landlord about the refund of the balance of the bond money which they had not received. The landlord did not reply to any communication until 24 April 2023 and on that day the landlord advised the tenant that all the bond money was gone, and they owed further money. The landlord provided the tenant with invoices relating to cleaning and repairs and he instructed the tenant to take them to Work and Income New Zealand for payment.
The tenants say that they did not agree to the amounts claimed in the invoices the landlord has provided to the Tribunal.
I find that the landlord has dishonestly obtained the entire bond money without the agreement of the tenants. The dispute should have been referred to the Tribunal rather than the landlord obtaining all the bond money by getting the tenants to sign a blank bond refund form.
Section 22 of the RTA makes provision for agreement for payment of bond and states: (1) This section applies if— (a) at any time a landlord or a tenant applies in the approved form for payment of a bond, or part of a bond; and (b) the application is made— (i) with the agreement of the other party; or (ii) in favour of the other party. (2) The chief executive must pay the bond (or, as the case requires, part of the bond) in accordance with the terms of the application.
Section 22A of the Act sets out what is to occur when there is no agreement but as the landlord did not advise that the tenant did not agree none of these steps were followed.
The application for payment of the bond was not with the agreement of the other party or in favour of the other party. The disputed amount should have been returned to the tenants or held by the Bond Centre until this matter was heard and determined by the Tribunal. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4559989 — net $1,962.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 23 March 2023	$1,700.00	Rent arrears (to 23 March 2023
Repairs: (Painting to cover felt marks on walls	$2,185.00	Repairs: (Painting to cover felt marks on walls
Carpet Cleaning: (Stain removal	$339.25	Carpet Cleaning: (Stain removal
Replace furnishings: (Curtain over sliding door	$517.50	Replace furnishings: (Curtain over sliding door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,962.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,962.19

Order

Uitiriai Kapeteni and Rosieann Kapeteni must pay the landlord $1,962.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
The tenants’ application for breach of the Health Home Standards is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs is dismissed.
Uitiriai Kapeteni and Rosieann Kapeteni must repay the $1,962.19 debt to the landlord as follows: a. $20.00 each week for 98 weeks, commencing on Friday 19th January 2024 and ending on 5 December 2025; and b. $2.19 to be paid on 12 December 2025, being the last repayment of the remainder of the debt.
If the tenant fails to pay the repayments in paragraph 5 within 2 working days of the due dates, the balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenants disputed the costs of the remedial work the landlord had carried out and stated they could have had the remedial work done at a third of that cost but the landlord denied them that opportunity, despite him having met their contractor at the premises one month after the tenancy ended. They also refuted the cleaning cost claim as they say they had the house professionally cleaned, had mowed the lawns the day before they vacated and that the house and yard was in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. They also claimed the photograph of the rubbish on top of the fridge was taken after they left and that they took their fridge and so the picture could not have been taken during the exit inspection.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants confirmed they had not paid the last two weeks rent, having agreed with the landlord the $1,700.00 could be deducted from the bond. This was so that money could be used to engage a professional cleaner to clean the house prior to 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 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 landlord argues the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The evidence the landlord provided to the Tribunal does not support his claim. It is therefore dismissed.

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 tenants argued that although their children had written on the walls and the curtain over the sliding door with felt pens and had caused the stains on the carpet during the tenancy, they should have been permitted to get their own contractors to remedy this damage as they had received quotes for a third of the cost being charged by the contractors used by the landlord. The tenants did not dispute the damage is more than fair wear and tear nor did they disprove liability for the damage.
The landlord is under no obligation to allow the tenants to make good the damage created during their tenancy after the tenancy has ended.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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. Breach of Healthy Home Standard
The tenant claimed in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards. They referred to a room that had mould. They acknowledged that there was a heat pump in the lounge, a rangehood in the kitchen and an extractor fan in the bathroom.
There was insufficient evidence produced to support a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards and therefore that claim is dismissed. Bond
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenants paid a bond of $2,800.00 which was lodged with the Bond Centre.
When the tenancy ended on 23 March 2023 the tenants agreed to deduct the rent arrears owed. The landlord texted the amount owed to the tenant. It seems that the landlord did not provide the tenant with a rent summary until 27 April 2023.
The rent summary records that $1,700.00 was owed for rent arrears and the tenants agree that this amount should have been deducted from the bond money.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord emailed a bond refund form to the tenant for them to sign. The form is blank where it should have the amounts that each party is to receive. The only instructions given to the tenants in the email are to sign the same signature as used in the bond lodgement form. The tenants say that at the time they trusted the landlord.
A follow up email from the landlord was sent on 27 March 2023 reminding the tenants to sign the form.
On 28 and 29 March 2023 the tenants signed the blank refund form and returned it to the landlord.
The landlord claimed the bond money from the Bond Centre. Instead of the landlord receiving $1,700.00 of the $2,800.00 bond the total bond has been released to the landlord, without the tenant’s agreement and therefore the bond refund was in dispute.
The tenant’s evidence is that she tried to contact the landlord about the refund of the balance of the bond money which they had not received. The landlord did not reply to any communication until 24 April 2023 and on that day the landlord advised the tenant that all the bond money was gone, and they owed further money. The landlord provided the tenant with invoices relating to cleaning and repairs and he instructed the tenant to take them to Work and Income New Zealand for payment.
The tenants say that they did not agree to the amounts claimed in the invoices the landlord has provided to the Tribunal.
I find that the landlord has dishonestly obtained the entire bond money without the agreement of the tenants. The dispute should have been referred to the Tribunal rather than the landlord obtaining all the bond money by getting the tenants to sign a blank bond refund form.
Section 22 of the RTA makes provision for agreement for payment of bond and states: (1) This section applies if— (a) at any time a landlord or a tenant applies in the approved form for payment of a bond, or part of a bond; and (b) the application is made— (i) with the agreement of the other party; or (ii) in favour of the other party. (2) The chief executive must pay the bond (or, as the case requires, part of the bond) in accordance with the terms of the application.
Section 22A of the Act sets out what is to occur when there is no agreement but as the landlord did not advise that the tenant did not agree none of these steps were followed.
The application for payment of the bond was not with the agreement of the other party or in favour of the other party. The disputed amount should have been returned to the tenants or held by the Bond Centre until this matter was heard and determined by the Tribunal. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4559989 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4559989 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions