What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4575131?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4575131?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Half Share Based On Economic Life))…: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.66 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,429.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $538.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4575131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4575131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9196979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4575131?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4575131?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Half Share Based On Economic Life))…: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.66 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,429.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $538.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4575131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4575131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9196979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 Parkers Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4575131 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

86 Parkers Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4575131 — Rent arrears | 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 4575131 — net $763.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,429.56	Rent arrears
Cleaning: 50	$40.00	Cleaning: 50
Window repairs	$439.28	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$80.00	Rubbish removal
Water rates	$538.85	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
half share based on economic life)) and labour	$110.00	half share based on economic life)) and labour
Lock/key replacement	$145.66	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$763.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.79

Claims and awards for application 4575131 — net $763.79 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,429.56
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning: 50

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: 50

Window repairs

Amount: $439.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Water rates

Amount: $538.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

A Broken Light In The Lounge — I accept the tenants’ submission that it was pre-existing.
Extractor Grill In The Kitchen Ceili… — as I consider the damage better categorised as fair wear and tear.
Lawns and Garden Work — The condition of the lawn is not that dissimilar from the entry photos. I do not consider the tenants liable for removal of fruit falling beneath the tree (fei…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates Lawns And Garden Work

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kelly Marie Weller and Marcel Angell must pay Excalibre Property Management Limited Trading As Ray White 100% Property Management As Agent For Christine Laverty $763.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (6407138-008) to Excalibre Property Management Limited Trading As Ray White 100% Property Mangement As Agent For Christine Laverty 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 16 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy were $1,429.57 and $538.85 respectively.

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 left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There was a further clean conducted at a cost of $80.00. Of the tasks performed, I accept 50% of those tasks more likely related to areas missed by the tenants, particularly in the kitchen and wood burner. I award $40.00 towards that invoiced cost.
There was a cost of disposal of a clothes dryer and gas bottle left behind. The invoiced cost of that was $80.00 and that is awarded in full.
The sleepout door key was not returned at the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated the door handle failed during the tenancy and they replaced the handle and lock fixture. As the sleepout was occupied by the tenant’s daughter, they immediately replaced it. They say they advised the landlord that it had broken but no evidence of them requesting compensation from the landlord was available.
I note that a tenant does not have the right to incur expenses for repairs to tenancy premises unless the problem is likely to cause injury or is otherwise serious and urgent and the landlord has been told of the problem first (see s 40(1)(d) RTA). I provided for the tenants to provide after the hearing evidence of any such notice, but this has not been received, therefore I award the $145.66 for the locksmith as invoiced.
The landlord had to replace 13 LED light bulbs. The tenant must replace standard light bulbs. The cost of the lightbulbs was included in a larger electrician invoice for a wider range of electrical tasks completed at the time. From the photos I accept it more likely than not that the lightbulbs at the commencement were similar and a “like-for-like” replacement occurred. The adoption of more expensive (to purchase) but longer-life LED bulbs makes apportionment of such costs more problematic than historically for standard light bulbs 1 . By this, I compare the usual rated hours of LED bulbs at 15,000 hours. In a tenancy of approximately two years duration, and assuming an average use per day of ten hours (generous) that equates to approximately 3,500 hours of use per year. That means an expected maximum life of 4.3 years.
Historically, the cost of a light bulb may rightfully have been considered a consumable item to be replaced as required by the tenant. I do not consider that this is automatically the case with the superior but more expensive LED bulbs. The cost of the thirteen bulbs was $163.51 and I have apportioned 50% of that cost to the tenants, based on the two-year tenancy and the like-for-like replacement. The award is rounded up to $110.00 to compensate the labour cost in replacing the bulbs. Given the more extensive work being conducted by the electricians at the same time I have not awarded travel and sundries.
I do not consider the failure of LED light bulbs should be considered fair wear here. The initial installation of these is at a higher cost to the landlord than for standard bulbs but the beneficiary of the resulting improved energy efficiency is the tenant. Some recognition of both economic realities makes some apportionment of the purchase cost appropriate.
The claim for lawns and gardens work as invoiced for $250.00 is dismissed. The condition of the lawn is not that dissimilar from the entry photos. I do not consider the tenants liable for removal of fruit falling beneath the tree (feijoa). There was no evidence of the fallen fruit interfering with the pathways or outdoor use. They could have remained in-situ without obvious impact.
The amounts ordered are proved by photos and reports.

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.
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. 1 By comparison, incandescent “standard” bulbs have a shorter lifespan. The average incandescent bulb light span is approximately 1,000 hours.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
At the end of the tenancy three windows were broken and replaced at a cost of $439.28. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claim for a broken light in the lounge is dismissed. I accept the tenants’ submission that it was pre-existing.
The type of extractor installed is curious given its intended purpose above the oven. Cleaning as the tenant carried out may reasonably have caused the clasp to break. It is more the norm that extractors in such a location are placed closer to the cooking area and have a removable filter to facilitate the anticipated need for cleaning. The extractor as shown in the photos looks more akin to that used for more passive use. The claim for replacement of the extractor grill in the kitchen ceiling is dismissed as I consider the damage better categorised as fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Application filing fee
Because Excalibre Property Management Limited Trading As Ray White 100% Property Mangement As Agent For Christine Laverty has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 4575131 — net $763.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,429.56	Rent arrears
Cleaning: 50	$40.00	Cleaning: 50
Window repairs	$439.28	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$80.00	Rubbish removal
Water rates	$538.85	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
half share based on economic life)) and labour	$110.00	half share based on economic life)) and labour
Lock/key replacement	$145.66	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$763.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.79

Claims and awards for application 4575131 — net $763.79 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,429.56
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning: 50

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: 50

Window repairs

Amount: $439.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Water rates

Amount: $538.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

A Broken Light In The Lounge — I accept the tenants’ submission that it was pre-existing.
Extractor Grill In The Kitchen Ceili… — as I consider the damage better categorised as fair wear and tear.
Lawns and Garden Work — The condition of the lawn is not that dissimilar from the entry photos. I do not consider the tenants liable for removal of fruit falling beneath the tree (fei…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates Lawns And Garden Work

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kelly Marie Weller and Marcel Angell must pay Excalibre Property Management Limited Trading As Ray White 100% Property Management As Agent For Christine Laverty $763.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (6407138-008) to Excalibre Property Management Limited Trading As Ray White 100% Property Mangement As Agent For Christine Laverty 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 16 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy were $1,429.57 and $538.85 respectively.

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 left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There was a further clean conducted at a cost of $80.00. Of the tasks performed, I accept 50% of those tasks more likely related to areas missed by the tenants, particularly in the kitchen and wood burner. I award $40.00 towards that invoiced cost.
There was a cost of disposal of a clothes dryer and gas bottle left behind. The invoiced cost of that was $80.00 and that is awarded in full.
The sleepout door key was not returned at the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated the door handle failed during the tenancy and they replaced the handle and lock fixture. As the sleepout was occupied by the tenant’s daughter, they immediately replaced it. They say they advised the landlord that it had broken but no evidence of them requesting compensation from the landlord was available.
I note that a tenant does not have the right to incur expenses for repairs to tenancy premises unless the problem is likely to cause injury or is otherwise serious and urgent and the landlord has been told of the problem first (see s 40(1)(d) RTA). I provided for the tenants to provide after the hearing evidence of any such notice, but this has not been received, therefore I award the $145.66 for the locksmith as invoiced.
The landlord had to replace 13 LED light bulbs. The tenant must replace standard light bulbs. The cost of the lightbulbs was included in a larger electrician invoice for a wider range of electrical tasks completed at the time. From the photos I accept it more likely than not that the lightbulbs at the commencement were similar and a “like-for-like” replacement occurred. The adoption of more expensive (to purchase) but longer-life LED bulbs makes apportionment of such costs more problematic than historically for standard light bulbs 1 . By this, I compare the usual rated hours of LED bulbs at 15,000 hours. In a tenancy of approximately two years duration, and assuming an average use per day of ten hours (generous) that equates to approximately 3,500 hours of use per year. That means an expected maximum life of 4.3 years.
Historically, the cost of a light bulb may rightfully have been considered a consumable item to be replaced as required by the tenant. I do not consider that this is automatically the case with the superior but more expensive LED bulbs. The cost of the thirteen bulbs was $163.51 and I have apportioned 50% of that cost to the tenants, based on the two-year tenancy and the like-for-like replacement. The award is rounded up to $110.00 to compensate the labour cost in replacing the bulbs. Given the more extensive work being conducted by the electricians at the same time I have not awarded travel and sundries.
I do not consider the failure of LED light bulbs should be considered fair wear here. The initial installation of these is at a higher cost to the landlord than for standard bulbs but the beneficiary of the resulting improved energy efficiency is the tenant. Some recognition of both economic realities makes some apportionment of the purchase cost appropriate.
The claim for lawns and gardens work as invoiced for $250.00 is dismissed. The condition of the lawn is not that dissimilar from the entry photos. I do not consider the tenants liable for removal of fruit falling beneath the tree (feijoa). There was no evidence of the fallen fruit interfering with the pathways or outdoor use. They could have remained in-situ without obvious impact.
The amounts ordered are proved by photos and reports.

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.
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. 1 By comparison, incandescent “standard” bulbs have a shorter lifespan. The average incandescent bulb light span is approximately 1,000 hours.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
At the end of the tenancy three windows were broken and replaced at a cost of $439.28. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claim for a broken light in the lounge is dismissed. I accept the tenants’ submission that it was pre-existing.
The type of extractor installed is curious given its intended purpose above the oven. Cleaning as the tenant carried out may reasonably have caused the clasp to break. It is more the norm that extractors in such a location are placed closer to the cooking area and have a removable filter to facilitate the anticipated need for cleaning. The extractor as shown in the photos looks more akin to that used for more passive use. The claim for replacement of the extractor grill in the kitchen ceiling is dismissed as I consider the damage better categorised as fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Application filing fee
Because Excalibre Property Management Limited Trading As Ray White 100% Property Mangement As Agent For Christine Laverty has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4575131 — Rent arrears at 86 Parkers Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4575131 — Rent arrears at 86 Parkers Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions