What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615811?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Aldridge and Mervyn Douglas Campbell must pay B&N Properties

How much money was awarded in case 4615811?

Cleaning: $430.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4564289 D…: $60.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote Control: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $415.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615811?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10288636-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615811?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Aldridge and Mervyn Douglas Campbell must pay B&N Properties

How much money was awarded in case 4615811?

Cleaning: $430.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4564289 D…: $60.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote Control: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $415.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615811?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10288636-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

122A Alford Forest Road, Allenton, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615811 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615811. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4564289 dated 28/06/2023	$60.45	Previous order application 4564289 dated 28/06/2023
Rubbish removal	$415.16	Rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$430.00	Carpet cleaning
Replace garage door remote control	$92.00	Replace garage door remote control
Carpet damage (insurance excess	$1,150.00	Carpet damage (insurance excess
Vinyl damage (insurance excess	$1,150.00	Vinyl damage (insurance excess
Cleaning and garden work	$525.00	Cleaning and garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Rachel Aldridge and Mervyn Douglas Campbell must pay B&N Properties Limited $3,843.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Rollinson and Ms Coulter represented the landlord in person. Ms Aldridge attended by phone. The guarantor Mr Campbell did not attend.
The hearing today was by way of rehearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 10 September 2021. The tenancy was for a 1-year fixed term. That was extended by agreement between the parties. The tenancy ended on 25 May 2023.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord applied for compensation for costs incurred due to the tenant’s failure to meet her obligations at the end of the tenancy.
When the Tribunal heard the application, it decided that no order could be made against the tenant as she was adjudicated bankrupt on 5 May 2023. The Tribunal made an order against the guarantor only.
The tenant did not attend the first hearing. Due to an oversight, she was not contacted by phone, having been granted the opportunity for a telephone attendance.
After the Tribunal made its order, the tenant applied for a rehearing and an appeal.
The appeal was put on hold, pending the Tribunal’s decision on the rehearing application.
The adjudicator who heard the application granted the rehearing. When that happens, the original order is set aside. That means the appeal cannot proceed because the order appealed against is no longer in force. Issues
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims other than for the amount claimed for cleaning and gardening work, and the 2 claims for the insurance excess for damage to the garage carpet and the kitchen vinyl. I have marked the accepted claims with *. The order for those amounts is by consent.
Also in dispute is whether the order can be made against the guarantor, the tenant’s father. The disputed compensation claims
The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy which lasted just under 20 months.
The landlord’s photos produced in evidence show that the premises were left in a poor condition. The tenant was clearly in breach of her statutory responsibilities when she vacated the tenancy.
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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
That the owner’s insurer charged separate excesses for the damage to the vinyl and to the garage carpet is standard insurance practice. The claims were distinct, as was the damage.
The tenant suggested that damage to the vinyl might have been caused when the fridge was shifted.
The tenant suggested that the garage carpet did not need replacing because the last report she received said that the carpet has been cleaned and the stains removed.
The focus here is on the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s photos, and the evidence the landlord’s representative gave, establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, or someone at the premises with her consent, caused damage to the vinyl and to the garage carpet.
I did not find the tenant’s submissions concerning her lack of liability, or limited liability, to be convincing.
But for the landlord being insured, the tenant’s liability might have been much greater.
That the insurer accepted the claims also establishes that the vinyl and carpet were damaged. Insurers do not indemnify a claim when there is no damage.
The tenant accepted some damage was done to the vinyl. She said she could have repaired it. But she did not. The landlord was entitled to have the damage repaired or, as was the case here, make an insurance claim for the damage.
Because the premises were newly built, this is not a situation where the Tribunal would allow a deduction for depreciation. The landlord’s claim is already limited to the amount of the insurance excess.
Likewise, I find that the landlord’s claim for cleaning and some garden work is reasonable and a cost for which the tenant is liable.
The landlord’s evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave the premises, including the outside, reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The tenant said she was not responsible for the cleaning of the gutters. That is correct. But gutter cleaning was not included in the invoice for the work done. The removal of a beer bottle and a sock from the spouting was work properly charged for.
There is nothing in the invoice for cleaning that the Tribunal would strike out as an unreasonable claim.

Can the order be made against the guarantor?

The tenant’s father acted as guarantor for this tenancy. The tenant considers that he is not liable for any costs awarded against her because his guarantee was limited to the original fixed term, not to the extended term of the tenancy, which she says she never signed.
There are 2 reasons why I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the guarantor should not be liable. First, the guarantor did not attend the hearing nor make any submissions on his liability. It is not for the tenant to argue his case on liability under the guarantee.
Second, and more important, is that the guarantor guaranteed ...the due and punctual payment to the landlord by the tenant of all monies payable by the tenant under the attached Tenancy Agreement, and also specified under the Residential Tenancies Act. And the guarantee states that ...in proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal the guarantor shall be treated as having executed the original tenancy.
The renewal document extended the original term; it did not create a new tenancy. The only variation was an extension of the end date.
Although the guarantor did not sign the extension, he is regarded as having signed the original tenancy agreement.
Even if there had been no extension, the tenancy would have continued as a periodic tenancy when the fixed term expired, by operation of the RTA. So, his guarantee was always going to continue beyond the original fixed term. Only in limited situations, including agreement between the parties to end the tenancy, or one of the limited options available to the landlord to give notice, would that not have occurred.
The guarantor should have been aware of the nature of his continuing obligations when he agreed to guarantee a fixed term tenancy since they arise by operation of law. The guarantee included payment of all monies also specified under the Residential Tenancies Act.
I find that Mr Campbell is liable for the costs that follow the tenant’s breaches by virtue of the guarantee he signed which specifically referenced monies specified under the RTA.
If the tenant is concerned about her father’s liability the solution is simple. She should pay the amount ordered so the landlord does not have to call upon the guarantor for payment.

Can an order be made against the tenant?

Finally, I consider that the amounts ordered against the tenant are properly made despite her bankruptcy. Although the tenant did not seek to escape liability on that basis, I have addressed that issue as it was part of the adjudicator’s reasons for making the order against the guarantor only.
The tenant was adjudicated bankrupt on 5 May 2023. These claims arose at the end of the tenancy on 25 May 2023. Before then, the tenant could have, and should have, ensured she complied with her statutory responsibilities when vacating the tenancy. The claims therefore arose after the bankruptcy and can be the subject of an order. Result
The tenant (and the guarantor if called upon) will pay the landlord $3,843.05 which includes the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
Neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615811. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4564289 dated 28/06/2023	$60.45	Previous order application 4564289 dated 28/06/2023
Rubbish removal	$415.16	Rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$430.00	Carpet cleaning
Replace garage door remote control	$92.00	Replace garage door remote control
Carpet damage (insurance excess	$1,150.00	Carpet damage (insurance excess
Vinyl damage (insurance excess	$1,150.00	Vinyl damage (insurance excess
Cleaning and garden work	$525.00	Cleaning and garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Rachel Aldridge and Mervyn Douglas Campbell must pay B&N Properties Limited $3,843.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Rollinson and Ms Coulter represented the landlord in person. Ms Aldridge attended by phone. The guarantor Mr Campbell did not attend.
The hearing today was by way of rehearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy started on 10 September 2021. The tenancy was for a 1-year fixed term. That was extended by agreement between the parties. The tenancy ended on 25 May 2023.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord applied for compensation for costs incurred due to the tenant’s failure to meet her obligations at the end of the tenancy.
When the Tribunal heard the application, it decided that no order could be made against the tenant as she was adjudicated bankrupt on 5 May 2023. The Tribunal made an order against the guarantor only.
The tenant did not attend the first hearing. Due to an oversight, she was not contacted by phone, having been granted the opportunity for a telephone attendance.
After the Tribunal made its order, the tenant applied for a rehearing and an appeal.
The appeal was put on hold, pending the Tribunal’s decision on the rehearing application.
The adjudicator who heard the application granted the rehearing. When that happens, the original order is set aside. That means the appeal cannot proceed because the order appealed against is no longer in force. Issues
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims other than for the amount claimed for cleaning and gardening work, and the 2 claims for the insurance excess for damage to the garage carpet and the kitchen vinyl. I have marked the accepted claims with *. The order for those amounts is by consent.
Also in dispute is whether the order can be made against the guarantor, the tenant’s father. The disputed compensation claims
The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy which lasted just under 20 months.
The landlord’s photos produced in evidence show that the premises were left in a poor condition. The tenant was clearly in breach of her statutory responsibilities when she vacated the tenancy.
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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
That the owner’s insurer charged separate excesses for the damage to the vinyl and to the garage carpet is standard insurance practice. The claims were distinct, as was the damage.
The tenant suggested that damage to the vinyl might have been caused when the fridge was shifted.
The tenant suggested that the garage carpet did not need replacing because the last report she received said that the carpet has been cleaned and the stains removed.
The focus here is on the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s photos, and the evidence the landlord’s representative gave, establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, or someone at the premises with her consent, caused damage to the vinyl and to the garage carpet.
I did not find the tenant’s submissions concerning her lack of liability, or limited liability, to be convincing.
But for the landlord being insured, the tenant’s liability might have been much greater.
That the insurer accepted the claims also establishes that the vinyl and carpet were damaged. Insurers do not indemnify a claim when there is no damage.
The tenant accepted some damage was done to the vinyl. She said she could have repaired it. But she did not. The landlord was entitled to have the damage repaired or, as was the case here, make an insurance claim for the damage.
Because the premises were newly built, this is not a situation where the Tribunal would allow a deduction for depreciation. The landlord’s claim is already limited to the amount of the insurance excess.
Likewise, I find that the landlord’s claim for cleaning and some garden work is reasonable and a cost for which the tenant is liable.
The landlord’s evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave the premises, including the outside, reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The tenant said she was not responsible for the cleaning of the gutters. That is correct. But gutter cleaning was not included in the invoice for the work done. The removal of a beer bottle and a sock from the spouting was work properly charged for.
There is nothing in the invoice for cleaning that the Tribunal would strike out as an unreasonable claim.

Can the order be made against the guarantor?

The tenant’s father acted as guarantor for this tenancy. The tenant considers that he is not liable for any costs awarded against her because his guarantee was limited to the original fixed term, not to the extended term of the tenancy, which she says she never signed.
There are 2 reasons why I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the guarantor should not be liable. First, the guarantor did not attend the hearing nor make any submissions on his liability. It is not for the tenant to argue his case on liability under the guarantee.
Second, and more important, is that the guarantor guaranteed ...the due and punctual payment to the landlord by the tenant of all monies payable by the tenant under the attached Tenancy Agreement, and also specified under the Residential Tenancies Act. And the guarantee states that ...in proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal the guarantor shall be treated as having executed the original tenancy.
The renewal document extended the original term; it did not create a new tenancy. The only variation was an extension of the end date.
Although the guarantor did not sign the extension, he is regarded as having signed the original tenancy agreement.
Even if there had been no extension, the tenancy would have continued as a periodic tenancy when the fixed term expired, by operation of the RTA. So, his guarantee was always going to continue beyond the original fixed term. Only in limited situations, including agreement between the parties to end the tenancy, or one of the limited options available to the landlord to give notice, would that not have occurred.
The guarantor should have been aware of the nature of his continuing obligations when he agreed to guarantee a fixed term tenancy since they arise by operation of law. The guarantee included payment of all monies also specified under the Residential Tenancies Act.
I find that Mr Campbell is liable for the costs that follow the tenant’s breaches by virtue of the guarantee he signed which specifically referenced monies specified under the RTA.
If the tenant is concerned about her father’s liability the solution is simple. She should pay the amount ordered so the landlord does not have to call upon the guarantor for payment.

Can an order be made against the tenant?

Finally, I consider that the amounts ordered against the tenant are properly made despite her bankruptcy. Although the tenant did not seek to escape liability on that basis, I have addressed that issue as it was part of the adjudicator’s reasons for making the order against the guarantor only.
The tenant was adjudicated bankrupt on 5 May 2023. These claims arose at the end of the tenancy on 25 May 2023. Before then, the tenant could have, and should have, ensured she complied with her statutory responsibilities when vacating the tenancy. The claims therefore arose after the bankruptcy and can be the subject of an order. Result
The tenant (and the guarantor if called upon) will pay the landlord $3,843.05 which includes the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
Neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615811 — Property damage at 122A Alford Forest Road, Allenton, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615811 — Property damage at 122A Alford Forest Road, Allenton, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the order be made against the guarantor?

Can an order be made against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the order be made against the guarantor?

Can an order be made against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions