What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4637552 about?

The tribunal order states: Palepa Penelope Pritchard and Lesa Liuliu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,636.60

How much money was awarded in case 4637552?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,516.16 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,525.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637552?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4637552 about?

The tribunal order states: Palepa Penelope Pritchard and Lesa Liuliu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,636.60

How much money was awarded in case 4637552?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,516.16 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,525.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637552?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Aumarire Lane, Favona, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4637552 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4637552 — net $3,636.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repairs	$1,516.16	Carpet repairs
Repairs to fire damaged deck and bedroom door lock	$575.00	Repairs to fire damaged deck and bedroom door lock
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,525.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,636.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,636.60

Order

Palepa Penelope Pritchard and Lesa Liuliu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,636.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord previously obtained orders for termination and rent arrears in relation to the tenancy. The landlord now seeks compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, various repairs 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 (“RTA”).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
This was a brand new build and the tenants were the first people to ever live there. The tenancy began on 7 January 2023 and ended on 10 July 2023, a period of approximately 7 months.
The landlord produced photos showing the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that a huge amount of rubbish left behind including old mattresses and furniture.
The landlord produced an invoice from KPS Services Limited for “one off cleaning and window clean”, “carpet shampoo” and “rubbish collected and disposed”, in the amount of $1,725.00.
I am satisfied that the amounts for rubbish collection and carpet shampooing are reasonable. I have discounted the balance of the invoice for “one of clean and window cleaning” by $200.00 because tenants are not required to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into, they only need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. I therefore order that the tenants pay compensation to the landlord in the amount of $1,525.00.

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 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: a. The carpet was burned in several areas; b. The deck was burned; and c. A lock had to be replaced on one of the bedroom doors.
The landlord produced photos showing burn marks on the carpet in the lounge and on the stairs. They explained that the carpet was patched but that relatively large areas had to be patched because of where the burn marks were. They produced an invoice in the from Carpet World in the amount of $1,516.16. The landlord also produced insurance information showing that the insurance excess was $2,500 so it was not worthwhile making a claim for the carpet damage. This claim is proved.
The landlord also produced photos showing a large burned area on the deck. They explained that the cleaners attempted to clean the area but that ultimately a number of boards had to be replaced. They also explained that the tenants removed a lock from the bedroom door and replaced it with another lock with a key, but the tenants did not leave a key, so the landlord had to replace this lock.
The landlord produced an invoice from Tairan Construction Ltd in the amount of $575.00 for replacing the boards on the deck and installing a new lock. This claim is 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. I do not consider that any depreciation is appropriate in this case at the property was brand new, and the landlord is in a worse position in respect of the carpet as the carpet is now patched.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord is entitled to an order for name suppression as the substantially successful party (see Section 95A RTA) and I make an order for suppression accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4637552 — net $3,636.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repairs	$1,516.16	Carpet repairs
Repairs to fire damaged deck and bedroom door lock	$575.00	Repairs to fire damaged deck and bedroom door lock
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,525.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,636.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,636.60

Order

Palepa Penelope Pritchard and Lesa Liuliu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,636.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord previously obtained orders for termination and rent arrears in relation to the tenancy. The landlord now seeks compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, various repairs 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 (“RTA”).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
This was a brand new build and the tenants were the first people to ever live there. The tenancy began on 7 January 2023 and ended on 10 July 2023, a period of approximately 7 months.
The landlord produced photos showing the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that a huge amount of rubbish left behind including old mattresses and furniture.
The landlord produced an invoice from KPS Services Limited for “one off cleaning and window clean”, “carpet shampoo” and “rubbish collected and disposed”, in the amount of $1,725.00.
I am satisfied that the amounts for rubbish collection and carpet shampooing are reasonable. I have discounted the balance of the invoice for “one of clean and window cleaning” by $200.00 because tenants are not required to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into, they only need to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. I therefore order that the tenants pay compensation to the landlord in the amount of $1,525.00.

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 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: a. The carpet was burned in several areas; b. The deck was burned; and c. A lock had to be replaced on one of the bedroom doors.
The landlord produced photos showing burn marks on the carpet in the lounge and on the stairs. They explained that the carpet was patched but that relatively large areas had to be patched because of where the burn marks were. They produced an invoice in the from Carpet World in the amount of $1,516.16. The landlord also produced insurance information showing that the insurance excess was $2,500 so it was not worthwhile making a claim for the carpet damage. This claim is proved.
The landlord also produced photos showing a large burned area on the deck. They explained that the cleaners attempted to clean the area but that ultimately a number of boards had to be replaced. They also explained that the tenants removed a lock from the bedroom door and replaced it with another lock with a key, but the tenants did not leave a key, so the landlord had to replace this lock.
The landlord produced an invoice from Tairan Construction Ltd in the amount of $575.00 for replacing the boards on the deck and installing a new lock. This claim is 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. I do not consider that any depreciation is appropriate in this case at the property was brand new, and the landlord is in a worse position in respect of the carpet as the carpet is now patched.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord is entitled to an order for name suppression as the substantially successful party (see Section 95A RTA) and I make an order for suppression accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637552 — Property damage at 7 Aumarire Lane, Favona, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637552 — Property damage at 7 Aumarire Lane, Favona, Auckland 2024

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions