What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4636664?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4636664?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $189.75 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) R…: $184.85 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $178.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $661.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $273.70 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $201.25 awarded to tenant; Storage Costs (18 Days: $513.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9447013-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4636664?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4636664?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $189.75 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) R…: $184.85 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $184.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $178.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $661.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $273.70 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $201.25 awarded to tenant; Storage Costs (18 Days: $513.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636664?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9447013-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Margaret Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4636664 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636664. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Storage Costs (18 days	$513.00	Storage Costs (18 days
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish Removal	$201.25	Rubbish Removal
Cleaning (Interior	$189.75	Cleaning (Interior
Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) Reglazing	$184.85	Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) Reglazing
Door frame repair	$184.00	Door frame repair
Hole Repairs	$178.25	Hole Repairs
Hole Repair Repainting	$661.25	Hole Repair Repainting
Fascia Repair	$273.70	Fascia Repair
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Shenell Baker to pay Property Brokers Waikato Limited $2,636.49 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Storage Costs (18 days)$513.00 Carpet Cleaning$230.00 Rubbish Removal$201.25 Cleaning (Interior)$189.75 Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) Reglazing$184.85 Door frame repair$184.00 Hole Repairs$178.25 Hole Repair Repainting$661.25 Fascia Repair$273.70 Filing fee $20.44 Total award $2,636.49

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend. I telephoned the Tenant, but they did not pick up.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 June 2023. The Landlord is claiming rent for the period the Tenant left her belongings at the premises.
Section 2 defines “rent” as follows: rent means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond
Section 2 defines “tenancy” as follows: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
The rent is to be paid by the Tenant under the Tenancy Agreement in consideration for a right to occupy the premises.
The Tenant’s right to occupy the premises ended when the tenancy was terminated.
Despite this, the Landlord is claiming rent for the period the Tenant’s belongings remained at the premises.
I reminded the Landlord there are provisions which deal with abandonment of goods. The Landlord says it contacted the Tenant to inquire when she would collect her belongings and she replied that her family members would collect her belongings on or about 25 June, some 18 days after the end of the tenancy.
While the Tenant’s belongings were collected eventually, it took longer than the Tenant initially indicated, and I find the Landlord did not have vacant possession as a result.
I consider the Tenant should pay the notional cost of storage for the period, at a rate of $28.50/day: $513.00.

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claims as follows: a. Carpet Cleaning $230.00: The Tenant had a dog in the property which they were not supposed to have. There was staining throughout the house in different rooms. The Landlord’s post-tenancy report provides photographs of the premises showing dark patches on the entryway carpet. There were pink (reddish) stains on the carpet and dog faeces on the carpet. I approve this claim. b. Rubbish removal $201.25: The Landlord’s post-tenancy photographs show wooden pellets and couches were left behind in the garage, a dead board and other bits of wood just chopped up, chairs outside and a milk crate. I approve this claim. c. Cleaning $189.75: The Landlord says there were woodchips on the floor inside the premises and the carpet needed a vacuum (prior to commercial carpet leaning). The Landlord describes there being a number of surfaces that were sticky; all vinyl surfaces, benchtops, cupboards and drawers. There were marks on the walls, dog faeces on the walls and skirting boards. The Landlord says the Tenant did not appear to have washed or wiped any cupboards or drawers. The shower and bath needed intensive cleaning to remove soap scum and other organic material, and there were food debris and marks from cooking oil on surfaces throughout the kitchen. I approve the Landlord’s claim.

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:
Glass Window reglaze (front door – bottom pane) $184.85. This windowpane had broken during the tenancy and the Tenant had tried to replace it with an acrylic (Perspex) sheet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I approve this claim.
Door Frame repair $184.00: The Landlord’s photographs show the architrave of the door had been smashed in and ripped off during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear and I approve the Landlord’s claim.
Hole repairs and door stop replacement $178.25: There were four holes in walls at the end of the tenancy in the hallways, bedroom 3 and the backing of some doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and I approve the Landlord’s claim. I approve the cost of painting these surfaces also: $661.25
Repair to fascia: The neighbour has advised the Landlord that the Tenant was responsible for damage to the fascia and the photographs after the tenancy show the damage. I have no photographs of the fascia prior to the Tenancy but the Landlord’s evidence is unchallenged. I approve the Landlord’s claim: $273.70
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.
Because Property Brokers Waikato Limited As Agent For Dilpreet And Gurtej Singh has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636664. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Storage Costs (18 days	$513.00	Storage Costs (18 days
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish Removal	$201.25	Rubbish Removal
Cleaning (Interior	$189.75	Cleaning (Interior
Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) Reglazing	$184.85	Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) Reglazing
Door frame repair	$184.00	Door frame repair
Hole Repairs	$178.25	Hole Repairs
Hole Repair Repainting	$661.25	Hole Repair Repainting
Fascia Repair	$273.70	Fascia Repair
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Shenell Baker to pay Property Brokers Waikato Limited $2,636.49 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Storage Costs (18 days)$513.00 Carpet Cleaning$230.00 Rubbish Removal$201.25 Cleaning (Interior)$189.75 Glass Window (Front Entrance Door) Reglazing$184.85 Door frame repair$184.00 Hole Repairs$178.25 Hole Repair Repainting$661.25 Fascia Repair$273.70 Filing fee $20.44 Total award $2,636.49

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend. I telephoned the Tenant, but they did not pick up.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 June 2023. The Landlord is claiming rent for the period the Tenant left her belongings at the premises.
Section 2 defines “rent” as follows: rent means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond
Section 2 defines “tenancy” as follows: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
The rent is to be paid by the Tenant under the Tenancy Agreement in consideration for a right to occupy the premises.
The Tenant’s right to occupy the premises ended when the tenancy was terminated.
Despite this, the Landlord is claiming rent for the period the Tenant’s belongings remained at the premises.
I reminded the Landlord there are provisions which deal with abandonment of goods. The Landlord says it contacted the Tenant to inquire when she would collect her belongings and she replied that her family members would collect her belongings on or about 25 June, some 18 days after the end of the tenancy.
While the Tenant’s belongings were collected eventually, it took longer than the Tenant initially indicated, and I find the Landlord did not have vacant possession as a result.
I consider the Tenant should pay the notional cost of storage for the period, at a rate of $28.50/day: $513.00.

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claims as follows: a. Carpet Cleaning $230.00: The Tenant had a dog in the property which they were not supposed to have. There was staining throughout the house in different rooms. The Landlord’s post-tenancy report provides photographs of the premises showing dark patches on the entryway carpet. There were pink (reddish) stains on the carpet and dog faeces on the carpet. I approve this claim. b. Rubbish removal $201.25: The Landlord’s post-tenancy photographs show wooden pellets and couches were left behind in the garage, a dead board and other bits of wood just chopped up, chairs outside and a milk crate. I approve this claim. c. Cleaning $189.75: The Landlord says there were woodchips on the floor inside the premises and the carpet needed a vacuum (prior to commercial carpet leaning). The Landlord describes there being a number of surfaces that were sticky; all vinyl surfaces, benchtops, cupboards and drawers. There were marks on the walls, dog faeces on the walls and skirting boards. The Landlord says the Tenant did not appear to have washed or wiped any cupboards or drawers. The shower and bath needed intensive cleaning to remove soap scum and other organic material, and there were food debris and marks from cooking oil on surfaces throughout the kitchen. I approve the Landlord’s claim.

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:
Glass Window reglaze (front door – bottom pane) $184.85. This windowpane had broken during the tenancy and the Tenant had tried to replace it with an acrylic (Perspex) sheet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I approve this claim.
Door Frame repair $184.00: The Landlord’s photographs show the architrave of the door had been smashed in and ripped off during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear and I approve the Landlord’s claim.
Hole repairs and door stop replacement $178.25: There were four holes in walls at the end of the tenancy in the hallways, bedroom 3 and the backing of some doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and I approve the Landlord’s claim. I approve the cost of painting these surfaces also: $661.25
Repair to fascia: The neighbour has advised the Landlord that the Tenant was responsible for damage to the fascia and the photographs after the tenancy show the damage. I have no photographs of the fascia prior to the Tenancy but the Landlord’s evidence is unchallenged. I approve the Landlord’s claim: $273.70
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.
Because Property Brokers Waikato Limited As Agent For Dilpreet And Gurtej Singh has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636664 — Property damage at 13 Margaret Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636664 — Property damage at 13 Margaret Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions