What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4628709 about?

The tribunal order states: Gloryallily Singhsran must pay [The landlord/s] $6,148.13 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4628709?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628709?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9563616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4628709 about?

The tribunal order states: Gloryallily Singhsran must pay [The landlord/s] $6,148.13 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4628709?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628709?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9563616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4628709 — Property damage

Order

Gloryallily Singhsran must pay [The landlord/s] $6,148.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: ItemAmount Rent arrears as of 4 June 2023$665.71 Water rates$289.48 Front door damage$550.00 Lounge and hallway damage$550.00 Garage internal door damage$550.00 Bedroom damage$2,300.00 Blind damage$448.50 Vanity damage$747.50 Lawn mowing$83.00 Cleaning$920.00 Carpet cleaning$379.50 Rubbish removal$1,265.00 Garage door remote control replacement$92.00 Smoke alarm replacement$138.00 Heat lamp replacement$69.00 Filing fee$20.44 Total $9,068.13 Minus Bond-$2,920.00 Total amount payable by tenant to landlord$6,148.13
The Bond Centre is to release the bond of $2,920.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2022, ending on 4 June 2023 following a 28 day notice from the tenant. The landlord states the tenancy was brand-new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord filed this claim with the Tribunal seeking compensation for wide ranging damage and costs at the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

RENT AND WATER ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenant is in arrears to the amount claimed, being $665.71, and that is ordered in full.
The landlord seeks water arrear of $289.48 for volumetric water use at the premises. This claim is established and ordered in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work. Cleaning
The landlord seeks general cleaning costs of $920.00. The landlord notes with respect to the photographs that there was extensive rubbish and cleaning required.
I agree the premises were very dirty at the end of the tenancy. The cleaning claim is high, but consistent with the work that would have been necessary to return the premises to a reasonably clean state. This is ordered in full. Lawn mowing
The landlord claims lawnmowing costs of $83.00 on the basis that the tenant did not mow the lawns prior to possession being returned to the landlord.
The photographs taken within 2 days of the tenancy ending confirm the lawns were not reasonably tidy. This claim is ordered in full. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks costs of $379.50 for carpet cleaning to address carpet stains.
I agree that the photographs do not show reasonably clean carpet. Carpet cleaning was very reasonable in the circumstances, and this claim is ordered in full. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs of $1,265.00 which includes skip bin charges. The landlord refers to the photographs which show extensive rubbish and goods including matrasses and furniture.
There was extensive rubbish on the premises as confirmed on the photographs. This claim is reasonable given the volume of rubbish left by the tenant.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Front door damage
The landlord states that the tenant had a fight with the neighbour, and in the fight the door and frame were broken, and the door and frame needed to be replaced. The total cost of the repair was $4,485.00, but the landlord is only claiming $550.00 being the insurance excess.
This damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage (it is very likely intentional damage). This claim is ordered in full. Lounge and hallway damage
The landlord states there was damage to the walls and carpet in the lounge and hallway, the total repair costs being $2,400.00 but again the landlord is seeking $550.00 being the level of the insurance excess.
There is extensive damage to the interior of the premises, including small holes and dents in walls, and extensive marking on walls. Given the amount of damage, it is far from fair wear and tear, and would fall within the intentional category for damage taking into account the approach taken by the High Court in Guo noted above. This claim is ordered in full. Garage internal door
The landlord states that the tenant damaged the garage internal door between the garage and the dwelling which cost $1,500.00 to repair. The landlord seeks costs of $550.00 being the insurance excess.
I am satisfied this damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability. This claim is ordered in full. Bedroom and hall damage
The landlord states there were extensive damage to the premises. The quotation for the full repair was over $6,000.00, however the landlord had the damage patch repaired and painted which cost the landlord $2,300.00.
As noted above, there is very extensive damage throughout the interior of the house, which is not fair wear and tear. The damage would fall into the intentional category given the extent of the damage. This claim is ordered in full. Blind damage
The landlord states that the blinds were damaged during the tenancy. Strings were broken and weights were missing. The repair cost was $448.50.
The damage is not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability. The claim is ordered in full. Bathroom vanity
The landlord states that the doors and draws on the vanity were broken. The tradesman advised the unit could not be repaired, and that a replacement was necessary which cost the landlord $747.50
Given the photographs, I accept the damage is not fair wear and tear. The damage is likely to be intentional damage. The tenant is liable for the full replacement cost.

MISSING CHATTELS

At the end of the tenancy the tenant needed to return all chattels provided by the landlord, and failing to do so, makes the tenant liable for the replacement cost. Garage remote control
The landlord seeks costs to replace the garage remote control, provided at the start of the tenancy but not returned to the landlord. Replacement costs of $92.00 are claimed. This claim is established and ordered in full. Replacement smoke alarms
The landlord states that three smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy, and the replacement costs were $138.00. This claim is established and ordered in full. Heat lamps
The landlord sees $69.00 to replace 4 missing heat lamps at the end of the tenancy. This claim is established and ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case landlord seeks name suppression which is ordered given the landlord has been wholly successful in the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628709 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628709 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT AND WATER ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

MISSING CHATTELS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT AND WATER ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

MISSING CHATTELS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION