What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4634389 about?

The tribunal order states: Gia Stewart Manuel must pay [The landlord/s] $18,402.98 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4634389?

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 4634389?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4634389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9566995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4634389 about?

The tribunal order states: Gia Stewart Manuel must pay [The landlord/s] $18,402.98 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4634389?

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 4634389?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4634389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9566995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4634389 — Property damage

Order

Gia Stewart Manuel must pay [The landlord/s] $18,402.98 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 14/09/2023 under application 4634389.

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. The landlord attended the hearing. The other party did not attend. The tenant was contacted twice on the contact number provided in the application but without success.
The landlord has applied for unpaid water charges, compensation, rent loss, recovery of collection costs, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy was ended by the Tribunal on 14 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (“RTA”).
On the evidence produced, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. The landlord relied on photographic evidence and invoices.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: smart TV, bed and mattress. The landlord also had to replace damaged curtains and a broken heater.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
The smart TV, bed and mattress were one year into their 4-6 year estimated life span and therefore the amount claimed is reduced by 1/5th (being an average) to account for depreciation.
The curtains were one year into its 8 year estimated life span and therefore the amount claimed is reduced by 1/8th to account for depreciation.
The age of the heater was unknown, however I have given the landlord the benefit of the doubt and have allowed 50% of the amount claimed. I consider this fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
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: the laundry was damaged due to the tenant failing to connect his washing machine to the tap correctly, the carpet in the lounge was damaged and the carpet in the hallway was missing, the tenant’s dog caused damage to the premises including the balustrade and deck. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In relation to the damage in the laundry, the landlord claimed costs for repair of $4,370.00. The landlord confirmed that whilst he did have insurance, his claim on this damage was declined. Therefore pursuant to section 49B(4) of the RTA, the property is to be treated as uninsured. As such, the section 49B cap in this instance would be the equivalent of four weeks rent being $2,520.00 as compensation for this damage. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 4 August 2023, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s termination notice was valid and effective. However, the tenant refused to vacate the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I consider that the tenant’s failure to leave was intentional and that exemplary damages should be awarded for that act. Taking the above factors into account I award the landlord $500.00 in exemplary damages because the tenant’s refusal to leave led to aggressive interactions on the tenant’s part and the involvement of the Police. It also meant the landlord was unable to move in as planned and had to find alternative accommodation. This caused significant stress and convenience to the landlord.
As discussed at the hearing, there is no legal provision to consider the landlord’s other claims for exemplary damages. These are therefore dismissed. Other matters
On 14 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord claimed the recovery of collection costs when placing the debt in the hands of a collection agency. In the circumstances it would be reasonable to allow the landlord to recover a third parties debt collection costs. There is no evidence that the third parties’ charges are unreasonable.
I am satisfied there is a direct relationship between the breaches by the tenant and the landlord’s claim for loss of rent. I allow 2 weeks loss of rent.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the other party to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlord’s name and

Tenancy Tribunal case 4634389 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4634389 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?