What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4607870 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4607870?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $440.36 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door, Kitchen Cupboard Door: $180.54 awarded to landlord; Carpet Lounge / Hallway / Lounge: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord; Oven: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Remote Gate: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Video Doorbell: $259.12 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Lock: $271.75 awarded to landlord; Replace: Garage Door Remote: $79.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $104.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4607870?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4607870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10292963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4607870 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4607870?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $440.36 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door, Kitchen Cupboard Door: $180.54 awarded to landlord; Carpet Lounge / Hallway / Lounge: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord; Oven: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Remote Gate: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Video Doorbell: $259.12 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Lock: $271.75 awarded to landlord; Replace: Garage Door Remote: $79.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $104.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4607870?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4607870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10292963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4607870 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4607870 — net $1,705.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: oven	$440.00	Repairs: oven
Repairs: remote gate	$550.00	Repairs: remote gate
Repairs: carpet lounge / hallway / lounge	$1,540.00	Repairs: carpet lounge / hallway / lounge
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$440.36	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$104.28	Rubbish removal
Repairs: bedroom door, kitchen cupboard door	$180.54	Repairs: bedroom door, kitchen cupboard door
Replace garage door lock	$271.75	Replace garage door lock
Repairs: video doorbell	$259.12	Repairs: video doorbell
Replace: garage door remote	$79.00	Replace: garage door remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,705.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,705.49

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The tenant must pay the landlord $1,705.49 as set out in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Repairs: oven $440.00 Repairs: remote gate$550.00 Repairs: carpet lounge / hallway / lounge $1,540.00 Cleaning$460.00 Pest control$440.36 Rubbish removal$104.28 Repairs: bedroom door, kitchen cupboard door Replace garage door lock $180.54 $271.75 Repairs: video doorbell Replace: garage door remote $259.12 $79.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,345.49 Bond$2,640.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,705.49

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 01 June 2022 and ended on 11 April 2023. The landlord’s application was filed on 16 June 2023. As the application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual rules of service no longer apply.

On 21 November 2023, the Tribunal directed the landlord provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement, and a written statement confirming that the address previously given as an alternate address for service was still occupied by the tenant’s mother. The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord states that they have visited the address and discovered that the tenant’s mother no longer occupies it. The landlord states that despite making enquiries with Work and Income, Corrections, NZ Police, the Courts, and using social media, they have been unable to locate the tenant. I am satisfied that the landlord, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so, has been unable to locate the tenant. In this case, service can be dispensed with. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

The onus of proving the claim made will rest with the landlord The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not, that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $460.00 for cleaning, and $104.28 for rubbish removal. The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for a cockroach infestation and is claiming eradication costs of $440.36. The landlord claims that the tenant failed to return the keys to a garage side door. The garage was a main door and a side door. The lock to the side door cannot be rekeyed and was replaced at a cost of $246.75 plus installation. Law

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) of the Act. To be liable for the eradication costs the landlord must establish that the infestation has been caused by an act or omission of the tenant. Decision

The property has three bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, kitchen, open plan lounge / dining room, and a garage, which houses the laundry. The landlord has produced photographs showing the property at the commencement and end of the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The compensation claimed is reasonable. Based on the evidence, in particular the photographs taken in the kitchen, I am satisfied to the required standard that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the cockroach infestation shown in the photographs. The eradication costs are awarded.

I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the keys to the side door of the garage. The lock was unable to be re barrelled. I award the replacement cost of $246.75 plus $25.00 installation, a total of $271.75.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the oven, remote gate, and carpet. The landlord is claiming the applicable insurance excesses. The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damaged to a garage remote control and is claiming $79.00 to replace it. The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a video doorbell system and is claiming $323.90. The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a kitchen cupboard door, bedroom door and a garage cavity cover. To repair this damage, the landlord claims materials of $32.54 and labour costs of $200.00. Law

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Decision

Dealing firstly with the oven, the landlord has produced a photograph showing the oven at the commencement and end of the tenancy. The front panel of the oven door is missing. The landlord states that the oven was about five years old at the commencement of the tenancy and in a reasonable condition. The landlord states that the oven door was unable to be repaired. Insurance covered the cost of replacing the oven, which was $2,100.00. The landlord is claiming the excess of $550.00.

I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. Considering betterment and depreciation, appliances in rental proprieties have an expected useful life span of around five years. In this case I reduce the amount claimed by 20% and award the landlord $440.00.

There is electric sliding metal gate over the driveway. The landlord has produced photographs showing the gate at the commencement, in an undamaged state, and then at the end of the tenancy. The photographs at the end show the gate off its runners and the electric motor controlling the gates has been damaged.

I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord states that insurance covered the repair, and, on that basis, they are seeking the excess of $550.00. This is less than the actual cost of repair. The landlord states that the gate and motor was less than three years old. I award the amount sought. I make no deduction for betterment or depreciation.

The landlord has produced photographs showing the carpet at the commencement and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end show significant staining in the lounge / dining room, hallway and one of the bedrooms. This staining was unable to be removed. The damage was covered by insurance. The landlord is seeking the applicable excesses, $550.00 for the lounge, $550.00 for the dining room, $550.00 for the hallway, and $550.00 for the bedroom. A total of $2,200.00.

I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Based on the evidence the damage is likely the result of carelessness. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord states that the carpet was around 9 to 10 years old and in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Carpet in rental properties has an expected useful life span of around 10 to 12 years. I reduce the amount claimed by 30% and award the landlord $1,540.00.

The property has a video doorbell system. There is a camera and bell attached to the front gate. There is a visual control unit located just inside the front door. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the video doorbell at the start of the tenancy in a working and undamaged state. A photograph taken at the end of the tenancy shows the visual control unit damaged on the floor.

I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord states the unit was installed just after the gate and is around 3 years old. As stated, appliances in rental properties have an expected useful life span of around 5 years. In this case, I reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and award the landlord $259.12.

Concerning the claim for damage to the kitchen cupboard door, bedroom door, and garage cavity cover. There is no evidence for the cavity cover. The landlord has produced a photograph showing a kitchen cupboard door, which has come off its hinges, and a bedroom door, which appears to have been damaged and roughly plaster repaired.

I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for this damage. Of the $200.00 labour cost, $25.00 has been attributed to the garage door lock. In my view $150.00 labour and material costs of $30.54 to repair the cupboard door and bedroom door is reasonable.

The landlord has produced a photograph of the garage remote which they state was provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The remote has been damaged and is inoperable. The cost of replacing the remote was $79.00.

I accept this claim. I am staffed that the remote was provided in working order and was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability.

The balance of the claims for batteries, nylon hooks, and printing costs are dismissed. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4607870 — net $1,705.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: oven	$440.00	Repairs: oven
Repairs: remote gate	$550.00	Repairs: remote gate
Repairs: carpet lounge / hallway / lounge	$1,540.00	Repairs: carpet lounge / hallway / lounge
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$440.36	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$104.28	Rubbish removal
Repairs: bedroom door, kitchen cupboard door	$180.54	Repairs: bedroom door, kitchen cupboard door
Replace garage door lock	$271.75	Replace garage door lock
Repairs: video doorbell	$259.12	Repairs: video doorbell
Replace: garage door remote	$79.00	Replace: garage door remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,705.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,705.49

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I accept this claim. I am staffed that the remote was provided in working order and was undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved liability.

The balance of the claims for batteries, nylon hooks, and printing costs are dismissed. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4607870 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4607870 — 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