What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4599029 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 4599029?

Pest Control: $18.89 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $539.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599029?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9199006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4599029 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 4599029?

Pest Control: $18.89 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $539.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599029?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9199006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4599029 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4599029 — net $709.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$150.65	Lock/key replacement
Pest control	$18.89	Pest control
Repairs	$539.99	Repairs
Net award	$709.53
Bond	$1,455.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$709.53

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of all parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $709.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,455.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $709.53 [The tenant/s]: $745.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant opposed the majority of deductions from the bond and sought a refund of the bond.

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 did not return all the keys to the property. The tenant did not agree that was the case, however at the date of hearing still had a set of keys to the property. The tenant accepted that she had not cut additional keys. From this, I can conclude that the tenant did not return all keys.
In fairness to the tenant, her evidence was that the process of moving was stressful for her, and she would have returned the keys had the landlord indicated some were missing. I entirely understand that position, and my order is not in any way a criticism of the tenant. However, landlords are entitled to change locks and seek reimbursement of that cost from tenants in situations where the keys are not returned.
There is no claim for cleaning costs, but the landlord seeks reimbursement for three flea bombs required to rid the premises of fleas. The tenant does not accept that there were fleas in the premises. The landlord’s evidence is that they were readily visible in the carpet in the days following the end of the tenancy. This is supported by an email from one of the tradesmen engaged to undertake renovations. I accept the landlord’s evidence in this regard.
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. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to wardrobe doors from the use of stickers during the tenancy. b. 9 holes in various walls and a door throughout the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
In relation to the sticker damage, the tenant accepts liability for that, and agreed a quantum to repair prior to the hearing.
In relation to the holes in the walls, the tenant accepts some of these and disputes others.
In relation to the two holes in the laundry, the tenant’s evidence is that those holes were there at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord is not able to rebut that with evidence. I accept the tenant’s evidence, particularly given her evidence in relation to other damage, which she does accept responsibility for. The tenant’s honesty in relation to those lends credibility to her denial of liability for the two in the laundry.
In relation to the hole in the wall behind the door in the bedroom, it is clear this was caused by the coat hook on the back of the door. There is no evidence that a doorstop was also mounted to prevent such damage. It is the tenant’s position that this damage was accidental. I accept that. In the absence of carelessness, the tenant is not liable for accidental damage.
In relation to the remaining 6 holes, the tenant accepts that they were caused during the tenancy. Most were caused when moving furniture. This amounts, in my view, to careless damage for which the tenant is liable.
In relation to quantum of damage, the tenant is concerned with this cost in the scheme of a larger renovation which was carried out by the landlord following the tenancy. She queried whether remedying this damage was really an additional cost to the landlord.
The landlord has provided a separate invoice for the cost of patching and repairing the holes in the gib and the wardrobe door. The landlord, appropriately, has not sought the cost of painting following repair.
Had the cost of repairing the holes not been so clearly itemised and set out, I would have agreed with the tenant. However, in the circumstances, I consider the landlord has proved by liability and quantum, and the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4599029 — net $709.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$150.65	Lock/key replacement
Pest control	$18.89	Pest control
Repairs	$539.99	Repairs
Net award	$709.53
Bond	$1,455.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$709.53

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of all parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $709.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,455.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $709.53 [The tenant/s]: $745.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant opposed the majority of deductions from the bond and sought a refund of the bond.

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 did not return all the keys to the property. The tenant did not agree that was the case, however at the date of hearing still had a set of keys to the property. The tenant accepted that she had not cut additional keys. From this, I can conclude that the tenant did not return all keys.
In fairness to the tenant, her evidence was that the process of moving was stressful for her, and she would have returned the keys had the landlord indicated some were missing. I entirely understand that position, and my order is not in any way a criticism of the tenant. However, landlords are entitled to change locks and seek reimbursement of that cost from tenants in situations where the keys are not returned.
There is no claim for cleaning costs, but the landlord seeks reimbursement for three flea bombs required to rid the premises of fleas. The tenant does not accept that there were fleas in the premises. The landlord’s evidence is that they were readily visible in the carpet in the days following the end of the tenancy. This is supported by an email from one of the tradesmen engaged to undertake renovations. I accept the landlord’s evidence in this regard.
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. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to wardrobe doors from the use of stickers during the tenancy. b. 9 holes in various walls and a door throughout the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
In relation to the sticker damage, the tenant accepts liability for that, and agreed a quantum to repair prior to the hearing.
In relation to the holes in the walls, the tenant accepts some of these and disputes others.
In relation to the two holes in the laundry, the tenant’s evidence is that those holes were there at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord is not able to rebut that with evidence. I accept the tenant’s evidence, particularly given her evidence in relation to other damage, which she does accept responsibility for. The tenant’s honesty in relation to those lends credibility to her denial of liability for the two in the laundry.
In relation to the hole in the wall behind the door in the bedroom, it is clear this was caused by the coat hook on the back of the door. There is no evidence that a doorstop was also mounted to prevent such damage. It is the tenant’s position that this damage was accidental. I accept that. In the absence of carelessness, the tenant is not liable for accidental damage.
In relation to the remaining 6 holes, the tenant accepts that they were caused during the tenancy. Most were caused when moving furniture. This amounts, in my view, to careless damage for which the tenant is liable.
In relation to quantum of damage, the tenant is concerned with this cost in the scheme of a larger renovation which was carried out by the landlord following the tenancy. She queried whether remedying this damage was really an additional cost to the landlord.
The landlord has provided a separate invoice for the cost of patching and repairing the holes in the gib and the wardrobe door. The landlord, appropriately, has not sought the cost of painting following repair.
Had the cost of repairing the holes not been so clearly itemised and set out, I would have agreed with the tenant. However, in the circumstances, I consider the landlord has proved by liability and quantum, and the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599029 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599029 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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