What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625389 about?

The tribunal order states: Tyra Kumeroa Tuawawa Kayne Mahi Lord must pay [The landlord/s] $6,105.32

How much money was awarded in case 4625389?

Doorstops – Front Door: $41.89 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.25 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $4,238.74 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $35.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625389?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9869506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625389 about?

The tribunal order states: Tyra Kumeroa Tuawawa Kayne Mahi Lord must pay [The landlord/s] $6,105.32

How much money was awarded in case 4625389?

Doorstops – Front Door: $41.89 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.25 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $4,238.74 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $3,900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $35.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625389?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9869506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 20 Sare Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625389 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4625389 — net $6,105.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$35.00	Rubbish removal
Doorstops – front door	$41.89	Doorstops – front door
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$189.25	Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Repairs: walls and doors	$3,900.00	Repairs: walls and doors
Repairs: replace carpet and vinyl flooring	$4,238.74	Repairs: replace carpet and vinyl flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,105.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,105.32

Order

Tyra Kumeroa Tuawawa Kayne Mahi Lord must pay [The landlord/s] $6,105.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy ended on 20 June 2022. The landlord’s application was filed on 03 August 2023, some fourteen months after the end of the tenancy. In cases such as this, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application and notice of hearing has been either served personally on the tenant, sent to an address provided by the tenant within two months of the application being made, by serving it on a person over the age of 16 residing at a place where the tenant resides, or by serving it on a legal representative of the tenant.
At the first hearing of this matter on 31 October 2023, the landlord advised that around late August 2023, they had visited a whanau address previously given by the tenant. Although the tenant was not present at the address, it appears that a message was passed to the tenant that the landlord wished to discuss matters arising from the tenancy. Following the visit, the tenant then emailed the landlord. The landlord did not however confirm the email address as an address for service with Tenancy Services. On 27 October 2023, the landlord, on their own initiative, sent the tenant a copy of the notice of hearing for 31 October 2023.
On 31 October 2023, the Tribunal adjourned on the basis that only three days had elapsed since the advice of the notice and the hearing date. The Tribunal also directed that the Registrar send a notice of hearing to the tenant at the email address confirmed by the landlord as an address for service. This has been done. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to procced.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices.
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. Remove all rubbish and return garage door remote.
The landlord is claiming $35.00 to remove rubbish, and $189.75 to replace the remote control to the garage door. I have considered the end of tenancy inspection report which includes photographs. I am satisfied that the tenancy has failed to remove all rubbish. The Council provided waste and recycling bins are full of general rubbish. There is another general waste bin belonging to the tenant, which is also full of rubbish and has been left at the property. The amount claimed is awarded.
The tenancy agreement shows that the tenant was provided with a garage door remote and keys to the property. None of these were returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed to replace the remote control is awarded. There is no claim for the keys. Missing end to curtain rail and missing and damaged doorstops.
The landlord is claiming $19.25 to replace the missing end of a curtain rail and some of the hooks that have gone missing as a result. There are no photographs showing the damage concerned. There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed.
The landlrod states that the doorstop at the front door has been damaged and that the other doorstops located throughout the house are missing. The landlord has produced a photograph of the doorstop at the front door, which appears to be bent. The landlord states that the damage is consistent with the doorstop having been stood on, which is more than fair wear and tear. The property was built is 2019 / 2020. The tenant was the property’s second occupant. There is a pre tenancy inspection report which includes photographs. However, there are no photographs showing any of the doorstops at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states that the asked the builder to confirm in writing that they had in fact installed doorstops throughout the property. The builder has not responded. There are also no photographs showing the sites of any of the missing doorstops.
I am satisfied that the damage to the doorstop at the front door occurred during the tenancy and is more likely more than fair wear and tear. I award the amount claimed to replace the front door doorstop, which is $41.89. There is insufficient evidence concerning the other missing doorstops. Damage to carpet
The landlord has produced photographs showing staining to the carpet in each of the properties four bedrooms, the lounge / living room, and stairs, which includes the landing, and hallway. The staining can be described as widespread. At the commencement it was in a near new condition with no damage or staining. The landlord states that they attempted to remove the stains but were unsuccessful. The insurance company agreed that the carpet could not be cleaned and agreed replacement. The landlord has insurance for damage by tenants with an excess of $650.00. In this case the excess applies per room. The landlord is claiming the excess only. The landlord states that the tenant had several young children residing at the address and the damage was more likely the result of carelessness.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that it was more than fair were and tear and that it was more likely than not the result of carelessness. For three of the six rooms affected, the actual cost of replacement is less than the insurance excess. The total amount claimed to replace the carpet is $ 3,718.58. As stated, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The estimated useful life span of carpet in rental properties is around 12 – 15 years. Considering the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy, and its age, I reduce the amount claimed by 5% for betterment and depreciation. Accordingly, I award $3,532.65. Vinyl flooring
The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to the vinyl flooring in the entrance to the property and the kitchen. The vinyl flooring was 6 months old at the commencement of the tenancy with no damage. The damage to the entrance consists of a small area of concentrated scratches and was able to be patched at a cost of $93. 25. The vinyl in the kitchen is damaged beyond repair with cuts and tears.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The replacement cost was $1,528.58. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $650.00. In my view, the damage is consistent with carelessness. As with carpet, vinyl flooring in rental properties has a useful life span of around 10 years. The total amount claimed is $743.25. I reduce this by 5% for betterment and depreciation and award $ 706.09. Walls and doors
The photographs produced by the landlord showing the property at the end of the tenancy consisting of scrapes, nicks, small dents, small holes, paint tears, and gouges in the lounge / living room, each of the four bedrooms, and the stairs and hallway. The damage widespread. Some of the damage has been partially repaired. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord submits that the damage has likely been caused through carelessness. Based on the nature and extent of the damage I accept that submission. As with the carpet, the insurance excess of $650.00 has been applied to each room. In each case the actual cost of repairing the damage in each room was slightly greater than the excess. The total amount claimed is $3,900.00. There has been discussion as to whether betterment and depreciation apply to walls and their covering, paint, or wallpaper. The landlord submits that the time spent completing the repairs resulted in a loss of rent, although they have not made a claim, over and above that which may be expected had the property been vacated and re tenanted without the need to remedy damage. The landlord also submits that while some walls had to be repainted, others were repaired and the damaged areas only repainted, and that when viewed overall, it was debateable whether there, in fact, had been any betterment in the landlord’s position. The walls and their coverings were near new at the commencement of the tenancy. The only damage was a scrape on the wall in the stairs which I am told was repaired. Having considered the matter, I make no deduction for betterment. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. Costs
Because [The applicant/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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4625389 — net $6,105.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$35.00	Rubbish removal
Doorstops – front door	$41.89	Doorstops – front door
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$189.25	Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Repairs: walls and doors	$3,900.00	Repairs: walls and doors
Repairs: replace carpet and vinyl flooring	$4,238.74	Repairs: replace carpet and vinyl flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,105.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,105.32

Order

Tyra Kumeroa Tuawawa Kayne Mahi Lord must pay [The landlord/s] $6,105.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy ended on 20 June 2022. The landlord’s application was filed on 03 August 2023, some fourteen months after the end of the tenancy. In cases such as this, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application and notice of hearing has been either served personally on the tenant, sent to an address provided by the tenant within two months of the application being made, by serving it on a person over the age of 16 residing at a place where the tenant resides, or by serving it on a legal representative of the tenant.
At the first hearing of this matter on 31 October 2023, the landlord advised that around late August 2023, they had visited a whanau address previously given by the tenant. Although the tenant was not present at the address, it appears that a message was passed to the tenant that the landlord wished to discuss matters arising from the tenancy. Following the visit, the tenant then emailed the landlord. The landlord did not however confirm the email address as an address for service with Tenancy Services. On 27 October 2023, the landlord, on their own initiative, sent the tenant a copy of the notice of hearing for 31 October 2023.
On 31 October 2023, the Tribunal adjourned on the basis that only three days had elapsed since the advice of the notice and the hearing date. The Tribunal also directed that the Registrar send a notice of hearing to the tenant at the email address confirmed by the landlord as an address for service. This has been done. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to procced.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices.
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. Remove all rubbish and return garage door remote.
The landlord is claiming $35.00 to remove rubbish, and $189.75 to replace the remote control to the garage door. I have considered the end of tenancy inspection report which includes photographs. I am satisfied that the tenancy has failed to remove all rubbish. The Council provided waste and recycling bins are full of general rubbish. There is another general waste bin belonging to the tenant, which is also full of rubbish and has been left at the property. The amount claimed is awarded.
The tenancy agreement shows that the tenant was provided with a garage door remote and keys to the property. None of these were returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed to replace the remote control is awarded. There is no claim for the keys. Missing end to curtain rail and missing and damaged doorstops.
The landlord is claiming $19.25 to replace the missing end of a curtain rail and some of the hooks that have gone missing as a result. There are no photographs showing the damage concerned. There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed.
The landlrod states that the doorstop at the front door has been damaged and that the other doorstops located throughout the house are missing. The landlord has produced a photograph of the doorstop at the front door, which appears to be bent. The landlord states that the damage is consistent with the doorstop having been stood on, which is more than fair wear and tear. The property was built is 2019 / 2020. The tenant was the property’s second occupant. There is a pre tenancy inspection report which includes photographs. However, there are no photographs showing any of the doorstops at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states that the asked the builder to confirm in writing that they had in fact installed doorstops throughout the property. The builder has not responded. There are also no photographs showing the sites of any of the missing doorstops.
I am satisfied that the damage to the doorstop at the front door occurred during the tenancy and is more likely more than fair wear and tear. I award the amount claimed to replace the front door doorstop, which is $41.89. There is insufficient evidence concerning the other missing doorstops. Damage to carpet
The landlord has produced photographs showing staining to the carpet in each of the properties four bedrooms, the lounge / living room, and stairs, which includes the landing, and hallway. The staining can be described as widespread. At the commencement it was in a near new condition with no damage or staining. The landlord states that they attempted to remove the stains but were unsuccessful. The insurance company agreed that the carpet could not be cleaned and agreed replacement. The landlord has insurance for damage by tenants with an excess of $650.00. In this case the excess applies per room. The landlord is claiming the excess only. The landlord states that the tenant had several young children residing at the address and the damage was more likely the result of carelessness.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that it was more than fair were and tear and that it was more likely than not the result of carelessness. For three of the six rooms affected, the actual cost of replacement is less than the insurance excess. The total amount claimed to replace the carpet is $ 3,718.58. As stated, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The estimated useful life span of carpet in rental properties is around 12 – 15 years. Considering the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy, and its age, I reduce the amount claimed by 5% for betterment and depreciation. Accordingly, I award $3,532.65. Vinyl flooring
The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to the vinyl flooring in the entrance to the property and the kitchen. The vinyl flooring was 6 months old at the commencement of the tenancy with no damage. The damage to the entrance consists of a small area of concentrated scratches and was able to be patched at a cost of $93. 25. The vinyl in the kitchen is damaged beyond repair with cuts and tears.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The replacement cost was $1,528.58. The landlord is claiming the insurance excess of $650.00. In my view, the damage is consistent with carelessness. As with carpet, vinyl flooring in rental properties has a useful life span of around 10 years. The total amount claimed is $743.25. I reduce this by 5% for betterment and depreciation and award $ 706.09. Walls and doors
The photographs produced by the landlord showing the property at the end of the tenancy consisting of scrapes, nicks, small dents, small holes, paint tears, and gouges in the lounge / living room, each of the four bedrooms, and the stairs and hallway. The damage widespread. Some of the damage has been partially repaired. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord submits that the damage has likely been caused through carelessness. Based on the nature and extent of the damage I accept that submission. As with the carpet, the insurance excess of $650.00 has been applied to each room. In each case the actual cost of repairing the damage in each room was slightly greater than the excess. The total amount claimed is $3,900.00. There has been discussion as to whether betterment and depreciation apply to walls and their covering, paint, or wallpaper. The landlord submits that the time spent completing the repairs resulted in a loss of rent, although they have not made a claim, over and above that which may be expected had the property been vacated and re tenanted without the need to remedy damage. The landlord also submits that while some walls had to be repainted, others were repaired and the damaged areas only repainted, and that when viewed overall, it was debateable whether there, in fact, had been any betterment in the landlord’s position. The walls and their coverings were near new at the commencement of the tenancy. The only damage was a scrape on the wall in the stairs which I am told was repaired. Having considered the matter, I make no deduction for betterment. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. Costs
Because [The applicant/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

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625389 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 20 Sare Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625389 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 20 Sare Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions