What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4579409 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4579409?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4579409?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4579409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9374977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4579409 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4579409?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4579409?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4579409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9374977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4579409 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Niki Bohlmann and Leesa Jackson must pay [The landlord/s] $2,436.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 28 February 2023$1,755.18 Repairs: Kitchen kickboards$300.00 Cleaning$200.00 Carpet Cleaning and deodorising$350.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet - lounge$1,121.12 Replace furnishings: Carpet - lounge and study $1,000.00 Rubbish removal: carpet in the garage$230.00 Repairs: internal doors x 2$1,383.00 Window repairs: barn window$172.50 garage door remotes$389.56 storage of machinery$600.00 Rubbish removal$435.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$7,956.80 Bond-$5,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,436.80
The bond was refunded to the landlord with the tenant’s consent. Accordingly, the bond amount is accounted for above, for transparency, but no order for its return it required.
[The landlord/s] must take any personal documents belonging to the tenant, that have been left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord shall dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant by: a. selling all goods with a saleable value by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price, and b. disposing of all goods with no saleable value as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is 2,436.80.
[The landlord/s] must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.
The landlord’s application in relation the barn floor is withdrawn.
The tenant’s applications for refund of the bond and compensation for work undertaken on the premises are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant sought an adjournment of the hearing. That application was declined, and I include my reasons for that decision below.
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 tenant has sought refund of the bond and compensation for work done at the premises, in particular to the driveway. Tenant’s application for adjournment
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal was filed on 2 May 2023 and the Landlord’s cross-application on 22 May 2023.
Hearing notices were emailed to the parties on 25 August 2023 at 3:04pm. I note the tenant’s hearing notice was sent to the same email address he later made contact with the Tribunal with.
On 1 September 2023 (the working day prior to the hearing), at 1:07pm the tenant emailed the Disputes Tribunal Registry indicating that he sought an adjournment of the hearing as it had been set at short notice, and he was required in [City 1] at a conference.
The email was forwarded to the correct Registry for action. At 1:21pm the Tenancy Tribunal Registry emailed the tenant seeking evidence to support his request for an adjournment.
At 3:57pm the tenant sent a screenshot of a [redacted] flight to [City 2]. There were no passenger names attached, nor was the date the flight was booked confirmed. Of note to the Tribunal was the variation in the destination from the tenant’s original request, together with the lack of passenger details.
The tenant emailed the Registry at 8:08am on 2 September 2023, seeking confirmation of the adjournment. I note that was a Saturday and the email was not seen until Monday morning.
I sought an explanation for the variation in the destinations, particularly given there were no passenger details in the screenshot provided.
At the time of commencement of the hearing, that explanation had not been provided. However, I was later advised that the reference to [City 1] was a mistake, and the tenant appears to have taken offence to my seeking clarification.
I consider that the tenant had sufficient time to make a proper application for an adjournment, supported by sufficient evidence. Leaving the application until the afternoon of the working day prior to the hearing ran the risk that the application could not be considered in a timely manner, as was the case here.
The landlords were not advised of the request for adjournment and attended the hearing at the scheduled time. They opposed the adjournment on the basis of the lack of notice and the lack of evidence as to why the tenant was not present. Further, they indicated that there were text messages exchanged between them and the tenant last week, in which they were left with the clear impression that the hearing would proceed. The tenant did not indicate at any point that he was not available for the hearing.
Finally, I note there are two tenants listed on the tenancy agreement. No explanation was provided for why Ms Jackson could not attend the Tribunal on behalf of both tenants.
Taking into account the above factors, I considered that an adjournment of the hearing was not appropriate, and the application was declined.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 February 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, and I am satisfied that the amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Having seen photographs and heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord undertook cleaning of the premises herself. Her evidence is that the cleaning took a full day. In instances where a landlord undertakes work themselves, the Tribunal generally adopts an hourly rate of around $35 per hour. The landlord has sought $200.00, and I consider that amount is justified.
In relation to rubbish removal, there was carpet left in the garage of the premises which required removal, together with significant rubbish and other materials left in the barn. In relation to the items in the barn, the landlord provided a quote for a skip bin to remove that material. While the work has not yet been undertaken, as the landlord sought an order from the Tribunal for disposal of the material, it was the landlord’s evidence that this work would be undertaken as soon as possible.
The tenant did not return the garage door remotes.
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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Staining, water and pet urine damage to carpets in the lounge, bedroom and study. b. Damage to two internal doors. c. A broken window in the barn. d. Damage to the kickboard in the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are 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. 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 relation to the carpets, the landlord’s evidence is that the carpet is 7-8 years old. I was also provided evidence from [redacted] indicating that the carpet was irreparably damage by urine and a large pot plant that was left in the lounge. That material also indicated that absent the damage, the carpet would have been likely to last another 10 years.
The landlord has replaced the carpet in the lounge, albeit with carpet of lesser quality. The carpet in the bedroom and study has been cleaned and deodorised (to the extent possible) but not replaced. The reason for the lower quality carpet was a matter of availability. The flooding in [City 3] in January and February 2023 has placed pressure on supply chains and the landlords were unable to source the same carpet before new tenants were due to move into the property. The same pressures resulted in the carpet and the bedroom not being replaced yet. However, I note there is evidence of extensive damage to those rooms.
Further, I note that the tenancy agreement allows the tenant to keep two cats. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant also had a dog in the house. The dog was observed, in the house, by the landlord during a property inspection, and the tenant has admitted to the landlord that it was a young dog and had urinated in the house.
In calculating the amount awarded for the carpet in the lounge, I have applied a lifespan of 18 years (being the 8 years the carpet has been in the house, and the 10 years of useful life anticipated by [redacted]).
In relation to the carpet in the bedroom and study, I have applied a similar calculation to the quotes for replacement carpet in those areas to reach a nominal figure in reflection of the reduction in value caused by what I consider to be intentional damage of the carpets (namely allowing the dog to continuing having access to the carpeted areas, despite incidents of urination). I have then reduced that figure slightly to reflect the fact that the carpet was not actually replaced.
I consider this approach is consistent with section 85 of the Act which allows the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in the manner mostly likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.
For completeness, the award in relation to the carpet in the bedroom and study is made pursuant to section 77(1)(n) of the Act, which allows the Tribunal to award compensation for breaches of the tenancy agreement or the Act. In this case, the keeping of the dog was a breach of the tenancy agreement, and intention damage remains a breach of the Act. Disposal of Goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is unable to agree with the tenant on a period for the tenant to collect the goods.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. Some of the goods may have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. The landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds, and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord may dispose of any goods that have no saleable value. Tenant Claims
The tenant sought refund of the bond and compensation for work done at the premises, including work undertaken on the driveway.
The tenant did not appear at the hearing, and, as set out above, his application for an adjournment was declined.
The tenant’s applications are accordingly dismissed pursuant to sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The landlords sought suppression of their names. As they have been substantially successful in their claim they are entitled to suppression.
The tenant did not seek suppression in his application. Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4579409 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4579409 — Property damage

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?

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?