What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4582472?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4582472?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $666.69 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $334.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4582472?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4582472?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9204035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4582472?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4582472?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $666.69 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $334.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4582472?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4582472?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9204035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Karaka Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4582472 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4582472 — net $1,332.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 April 2023	$666.69	Rent arrears to 10 April 2023
Rubbish removal: Labour - rubbish	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal: Labour - rubbish
Rubbish removal: Waste disposal fees	$334.89	Rubbish removal: Waste disposal fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,332.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,332.02

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s claim for replacement of the toilet and electrical costs and lock replacement are dismissed.
Isla Dempsey and Raymond Smith must pay Selwyn Metcalfe Limited $1,332.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $690.00 (3416603-003) to Selwyn Metcalfe Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served and therefore the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing I heard evidence from the property owner and the previous property manager. A representative of Selwyn Metcalfe Limited also attended for the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records 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 and goods from the premises and return all keys.
The landlord’s claim relates to tidying and rubbish disposal. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I heard evidence from the property owner who says it took him about 28 hours to remove all rubbish and tidy the premises generally. The time claimed did not include cleaning costs. Photographs provided showed that the property was left in a very poor state with a volume of personal items as well as larger items and rubbish throughout the entire 4 bedroom home, in the garage/shed and outside.
The property owner estimated he disposed of 40 cubic metres of rubbish. He did this using his own trailer and was able to provide evidence relating to the size of the trailer and how many trips he had taken. He kept costs down by taking much of the items to a farm to burn and he also took some items to the waste refuse site.
On the basis of the evidence presented I consider $1,000 to be a reasonable sum for the labour and vehicle costs associated with the removal of the items by the owner. I consider the amount sought of $334.89 to be reasonable in relation to costs of the waste transfer station. The amounts ordered are proven.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys and sought the cost of replacement locks. However, there is no property inspection report from the start of the tenancy or other evidence to show what keys that were provided at the start of the tenancy. It cannot be proven exactly which keys the tenant had. Further, and in any event, no receipt was available for the ranch slider locks to prove loss. I therefore decline this claim.

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 says that the tenant damaged the toilet by ripping the base off the floor and also by breaking the base. I accept that this damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find it is most likely to be intentional damage.
The difficulty for the landlord here is that it has not yet replaced the toilet. To establish loss the landlord sought to rely on an invoice for replacing the toilet previously. Claims must be for actual loss or damage. A quotation or how much something cost in the past is not evidence of the quantum of actual loss suffered. The applicant should have its actual losses crystallised when proceeding with a claim. Without evidence of actual loss I would need to guess how much loss the landlord will incur in replacing the toilet and this is not sufficient. I therefore dismiss this part of the claim.
The landlord says that the tenant caused an electrical issue during the course of the tenancy and an electrician was called out. The invoice, which has been generated to the tenants by Metcalfe Real Estate, sets out that there was a fault with the power tripping. The invoice also sets out that the fault was found to be with a multi-box in a bedroom that was split in half and making crackling noises.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is responsible for the cost of this call out. The only evidence is an invoice generated by a property management company. There is no evidence from the electrician or a copy of the electrician’s invoice. I therefore dismiss this claim.
Because Selwyn Metcalfe Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4582472 — net $1,332.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 April 2023	$666.69	Rent arrears to 10 April 2023
Rubbish removal: Labour - rubbish	$1,000.00	Rubbish removal: Labour - rubbish
Rubbish removal: Waste disposal fees	$334.89	Rubbish removal: Waste disposal fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,332.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,332.02

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s claim for replacement of the toilet and electrical costs and lock replacement are dismissed.
Isla Dempsey and Raymond Smith must pay Selwyn Metcalfe Limited $1,332.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $690.00 (3416603-003) to Selwyn Metcalfe Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been served and therefore the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing I heard evidence from the property owner and the previous property manager. A representative of Selwyn Metcalfe Limited also attended for the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records 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 and goods from the premises and return all keys.
The landlord’s claim relates to tidying and rubbish disposal. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
I heard evidence from the property owner who says it took him about 28 hours to remove all rubbish and tidy the premises generally. The time claimed did not include cleaning costs. Photographs provided showed that the property was left in a very poor state with a volume of personal items as well as larger items and rubbish throughout the entire 4 bedroom home, in the garage/shed and outside.
The property owner estimated he disposed of 40 cubic metres of rubbish. He did this using his own trailer and was able to provide evidence relating to the size of the trailer and how many trips he had taken. He kept costs down by taking much of the items to a farm to burn and he also took some items to the waste refuse site.
On the basis of the evidence presented I consider $1,000 to be a reasonable sum for the labour and vehicle costs associated with the removal of the items by the owner. I consider the amount sought of $334.89 to be reasonable in relation to costs of the waste transfer station. The amounts ordered are proven.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys and sought the cost of replacement locks. However, there is no property inspection report from the start of the tenancy or other evidence to show what keys that were provided at the start of the tenancy. It cannot be proven exactly which keys the tenant had. Further, and in any event, no receipt was available for the ranch slider locks to prove loss. I therefore decline this claim.

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 says that the tenant damaged the toilet by ripping the base off the floor and also by breaking the base. I accept that this damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find it is most likely to be intentional damage.
The difficulty for the landlord here is that it has not yet replaced the toilet. To establish loss the landlord sought to rely on an invoice for replacing the toilet previously. Claims must be for actual loss or damage. A quotation or how much something cost in the past is not evidence of the quantum of actual loss suffered. The applicant should have its actual losses crystallised when proceeding with a claim. Without evidence of actual loss I would need to guess how much loss the landlord will incur in replacing the toilet and this is not sufficient. I therefore dismiss this part of the claim.
The landlord says that the tenant caused an electrical issue during the course of the tenancy and an electrician was called out. The invoice, which has been generated to the tenants by Metcalfe Real Estate, sets out that there was a fault with the power tripping. The invoice also sets out that the fault was found to be with a multi-box in a bedroom that was split in half and making crackling noises.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is responsible for the cost of this call out. The only evidence is an invoice generated by a property management company. There is no evidence from the electrician or a copy of the electrician’s invoice. I therefore dismiss this claim.
Because Selwyn Metcalfe Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4582472 — Rent arrears at 11 Karaka Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4582472 — Rent arrears at 11 Karaka Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions