What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4637309 about?

The tribunal order states: Malia Bond, Peter Bond, Maria Bond and Jade Bond must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4637309?

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 4637309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9606784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4637309 about?

The tribunal order states: Malia Bond, Peter Bond, Maria Bond and Jade Bond must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4637309?

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 4637309?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9606784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36 Waihemo Street, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4637309 — Rent arrears

Order

Malia Bond, Peter Bond, Maria Bond and Jade Bond must pay [The landlord/s] $2,481.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I delayed the start of the hearing to allow for lateness. However, the tenant did not make an appearance and I decided to proceed. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly served.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
Mr and Mrs Bond became tenants at the property from 22 July 2022. They took over the lease from Ms A and Ms J Bond, their daughters who acted as guarantors. The tenancy was a fixed term lease which finished on 30 June 2023.
On repossession there was damage which has required remediation, including consisting of damage to painted walls due to a cleaning product, scrapes and damage to the toilet and door frame paint due to the foot plates on Mr Bond’s wheelchair, and damage to gib wall linings due to the installation of a television wall mount. Carpets were heavily stained and smelled, and have required cleaning, and there was a pile of lawn clippings in the garden which need to be removed and dumped. This application is for the recovery of the landlords’ costs to remedy these issues and for arrears of rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1026. The bond has already been released by consent to pay earlier arrears. I order that $1026 is paid to the landlord for rent arrears.

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 did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, apart from stains to the carpets, some stains and mould in the bathroom, and dust and mould on windowsills. The tenant had attempted to clean the walls, however, the product used had left smear marks on the walls which were unable to be cleaned off by the landlord’s handyman. The cleaning costs claimed are reasonable given the extent of the wall smears, the condition of the bathroom, and the condition of the tenancy after it was vacated. While the attempt to clean the smears was unsuccessful, the attempt needed to be made.
The landlord has claimed $270 for the removal of lawn clippings, including tipping costs. The photos show that there was a relatively large area which had been used to deposit lawn clippings over the course of the tenancy and that the clippings had rotted into the lawn. Removal was necessary. However, the landlord has provided a copy of the invoice for the tipping fees, which were $88.50. Deducting the tipping free from the invoiced amount leaves $184.50 for the removal of a single trailer load of lawn clippings. I consider this to be high for the amount of work and time involved (as the Spicer Place landfill is reasonably close to the tenancy). I have reduced the award sought to $100 for time and labour and the $85.50 for the tipping fee. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the costs claimed are reasonable. In this instance the costs sought are above a reasonable contractor rate for such work.
The landlord had the carpets cleaned. Under normal circumstances carpets do not need to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy unless it is proven that they were not returned in a reasonably clean way. However, in this instance the evidence from the landlord and the photos provided is that the carpets were new at the beginning of the tenancy and there were stains on carpets and a number of areas at the end. Therefore, it was reasonable and necessary for the carpets to be cleaned, and the costs claimed are reasonable.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B(1) RTA. 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 this instance the damage included paint damage from radium decorations placed around light fittings, the damage caused by the installation and removal of a television mounting bracket, and damage caused by attempts to clean painted wall surfaces. For the radium decorations and TV bracket it was reasonably foreseeable that removal would lead to paint damage. The cleaning product damage is unfortunate, but the landlord gave evidence that the tenants were advised not to use harsh cleaning products on the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, and on the evidence of the landlord, had accepted liability for the damage to paint from the attempted cleaning and from the television bracket.
I have considered the claim for the paint damage to the toilet door and door frame, caused by the foot plates on Mr Bond’s wheelchair. The landlord was aware that Mr Bond was in a wheelchair when the lease was entered into. The hallway through which the toilet is entered is relatively narrow. It appears to me that entry into the toilet without contact between wheelchair footplates and the door and doorframe, would be difficult if not impossible. Easy access to sanitary facilities is necessary for human dignity. In this instance, given the need to access the toilet, and the tight angle involved, I consider this damage to is fair wear and tear. The area of paint involved is relatively small, so I have made a deduction of $50 from the amount sought by the landlord.
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. The evidence is that the walls were freshly painted at the start of the tenancy.
On 29 July 2022 the guarantors provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that they would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations.
The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637309 — Rent arrears at 36 Waihemo Street, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637309 — Rent arrears at 36 Waihemo Street, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024

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?

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?