What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635654 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4635654?

Cleaning: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $99.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $495.19 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $301.19 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $16.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635654?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9387835-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635654 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4635654?

Cleaning: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $99.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $495.19 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $301.19 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $16.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635654?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9387835-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 758 Gladstone Road, Te Hapara, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4635654 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635654 — net $627.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$301.19	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$155.25	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$99.19	Window repairs
Cleaning	$420.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$495.19	Repairs
Smoke alarm, remote batteries	$16.67	Smoke alarm, remote batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$627.93

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Riripeti Samuels and Blair Te Pairi must pay [The landlord/s] $627.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Neither of the tenants attended the hearing. As the tenants had been served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages, refund of the bond, failure to perform tenant responsibilities and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy ended on 30 May 2023. The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided a copy of a post-tenancy inspection report dated 31 May 2023, with photographs of the condition of the property. It was evident from the photographs that the stove top and oven were left very dirty and needed to be cleaned, the floors were dirty, the shower and toilet were left dirty, there were items left in the kitchen cupboards and on the kitchen bench, the lounge wall and bedroom walls were also dirty. The fridge still contained perishable goods left by the tenant and the carpets needed to be vacuumed. The landlord engaged professional cleaners, who they said cleaned at the property for around 2 days at a cost of $420.00. I find this cleaning cost was required and is reasonable, given the evidence of the condition of the property. The tenant is to pay the landlord $420.00 for cleaning costs.
The landlord maintained the tenant did not return the keys. [The landlord’s representative/s] said Ms Samuels told her the keys would be left on the bench inside the house but they were not. As a result, the locks had to be changed at a cost of $155.25. I find this cost reasonable in the circumstances. The tenant is to pay the landlord $155.25 to have the locks replaced.
From the photographs in the post-tenancy exit inspection report, there was rubbish left by the tenant, both inside and outside of the property This included personal items no longer required, food, old furniture and household items, old toys and other children’s items and general rubbish. The landlord claimed the cost of $301.19 for the removal of all the rubbish and these items, both inside and outside of the house, including the dump fees for it. I find this cost to be reasonable, given the evidence provided. The tenant is to pay the landlord $301.19 for rubbish removal and disposal.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace batteries in the heat pump remote and purchase a new smoke alarm. The cost for new remote batteries was $5.00 and $9.50 for a new smoke alarm, for a total of $14.50, plus GST of $2.17 for a total of $16.67. I find this cost to be reasonable. The tenant is to pay the landlord $16.67 for these costs.
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 landlord said the tenant broke the bedroom window and removed its wooden frame. The landlord provided photographs of the gap where the window had been boarded up, and said the landlord had boarded up the window but then a further hole was made in the board by the tenant. There was a door leaning against the gap in the board in the photograph, which the landlord said the tenant had done to cover the gap. The landlord claimed for the cost of temporarily patching the window to secure the property at a cost of $99.19. The landlord explained that this was a temporary fix before the owner was to install new aluminium windows at the property post tenancy. There was not a claim for new windows by the landlord. Given the evidence, including photographs, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. I find the cost of repair to the landlord of $99.19 for temporarily patching up the window to secure the property to be a reasonable cost to fix the broken window. This claim was not for the window or framing itself, just temporarily securing the window area and so depreciation does not apply here.
The landlord said the tenant removed the door handles for the lounge and bedroom doors. Further, the landlord said the handles on the kitchen cupboards and drawers were broken by the tenant and needed to be replaced. The kitchen drawer also needed to be painted. The landlord characterised this as careless damage on the tenant’s part, which I find here. Given that I find this damage to the lounge and bedroom door handles, and kitchen cupboard and drawer handles, to be careless by the tenant, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the insurance excess here, which is $550.00. The landlord claimed $495.19, GST inclusive, for the materials and labour to replace and repair these. As this is less than the insurance excess of $550.00, I award $495.19 to the landlord to replace these door and cupboard and drawer handles, repaint the kitchen drawer and reinstall the loft cover.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claims for the cost of Round up weed killer and a door stop for the bathroom. Refund bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Did the tenant fail to perform their responsibilities?

The landlord alleged that the tenant failed to perform their tenancy responsibilities by leaving the property in an untidy and damaged condition. The landlord claimed exemplary damages for this.
Section 40 RTA outlines tenant’s acts which are declared to be unlawful acts and which can potentially incur exemplary damages. The behaviour alleged by the landlord of the tenant failing to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and damaging the property are not acts which are declared to be unlawful acts pursuant to section 40 RTA. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim in this regard. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression, which they are entitled to as of right, as they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635654 — net $627.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$301.19	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$155.25	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$99.19	Window repairs
Cleaning	$420.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$495.19	Repairs
Smoke alarm, remote batteries	$16.67	Smoke alarm, remote batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$627.93

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Riripeti Samuels and Blair Te Pairi must pay [The landlord/s] $627.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Neither of the tenants attended the hearing. As the tenants had been served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages, refund of the bond, failure to perform tenant responsibilities and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy ended on 30 May 2023. The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided a copy of a post-tenancy inspection report dated 31 May 2023, with photographs of the condition of the property. It was evident from the photographs that the stove top and oven were left very dirty and needed to be cleaned, the floors were dirty, the shower and toilet were left dirty, there were items left in the kitchen cupboards and on the kitchen bench, the lounge wall and bedroom walls were also dirty. The fridge still contained perishable goods left by the tenant and the carpets needed to be vacuumed. The landlord engaged professional cleaners, who they said cleaned at the property for around 2 days at a cost of $420.00. I find this cleaning cost was required and is reasonable, given the evidence of the condition of the property. The tenant is to pay the landlord $420.00 for cleaning costs.
The landlord maintained the tenant did not return the keys. [The landlord’s representative/s] said Ms Samuels told her the keys would be left on the bench inside the house but they were not. As a result, the locks had to be changed at a cost of $155.25. I find this cost reasonable in the circumstances. The tenant is to pay the landlord $155.25 to have the locks replaced.
From the photographs in the post-tenancy exit inspection report, there was rubbish left by the tenant, both inside and outside of the property This included personal items no longer required, food, old furniture and household items, old toys and other children’s items and general rubbish. The landlord claimed the cost of $301.19 for the removal of all the rubbish and these items, both inside and outside of the house, including the dump fees for it. I find this cost to be reasonable, given the evidence provided. The tenant is to pay the landlord $301.19 for rubbish removal and disposal.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace batteries in the heat pump remote and purchase a new smoke alarm. The cost for new remote batteries was $5.00 and $9.50 for a new smoke alarm, for a total of $14.50, plus GST of $2.17 for a total of $16.67. I find this cost to be reasonable. The tenant is to pay the landlord $16.67 for these costs.
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 landlord said the tenant broke the bedroom window and removed its wooden frame. The landlord provided photographs of the gap where the window had been boarded up, and said the landlord had boarded up the window but then a further hole was made in the board by the tenant. There was a door leaning against the gap in the board in the photograph, which the landlord said the tenant had done to cover the gap. The landlord claimed for the cost of temporarily patching the window to secure the property at a cost of $99.19. The landlord explained that this was a temporary fix before the owner was to install new aluminium windows at the property post tenancy. There was not a claim for new windows by the landlord. Given the evidence, including photographs, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. I find the cost of repair to the landlord of $99.19 for temporarily patching up the window to secure the property to be a reasonable cost to fix the broken window. This claim was not for the window or framing itself, just temporarily securing the window area and so depreciation does not apply here.
The landlord said the tenant removed the door handles for the lounge and bedroom doors. Further, the landlord said the handles on the kitchen cupboards and drawers were broken by the tenant and needed to be replaced. The kitchen drawer also needed to be painted. The landlord characterised this as careless damage on the tenant’s part, which I find here. Given that I find this damage to the lounge and bedroom door handles, and kitchen cupboard and drawer handles, to be careless by the tenant, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the insurance excess here, which is $550.00. The landlord claimed $495.19, GST inclusive, for the materials and labour to replace and repair these. As this is less than the insurance excess of $550.00, I award $495.19 to the landlord to replace these door and cupboard and drawer handles, repaint the kitchen drawer and reinstall the loft cover.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claims for the cost of Round up weed killer and a door stop for the bathroom. Refund bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Did the tenant fail to perform their responsibilities?

The landlord alleged that the tenant failed to perform their tenancy responsibilities by leaving the property in an untidy and damaged condition. The landlord claimed exemplary damages for this.
Section 40 RTA outlines tenant’s acts which are declared to be unlawful acts and which can potentially incur exemplary damages. The behaviour alleged by the landlord of the tenant failing to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and damaging the property are not acts which are declared to be unlawful acts pursuant to section 40 RTA. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim in this regard. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression, which they are entitled to as of right, as they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635654 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 758 Gladstone Road, Te Hapara, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635654 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 758 Gladstone Road, Te Hapara, Gisborne 4010

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?

Did the tenant fail to perform their responsibilities?

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?

Did the tenant fail to perform their responsibilities?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions