What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639390 about?

The tribunal order states: Lorraine Felanuai Taulu must pay [The landlord/s] $2,707.94 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4639390?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639390?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594969-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639390 about?

The tribunal order states: Lorraine Felanuai Taulu must pay [The landlord/s] $2,707.94 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4639390?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639390?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594969-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639390 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639390 — net $2,707.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Damaged walls	$575.00	Repairs: Damaged walls
Repainting	$862.50	Repainting
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning: Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Mattress replacement	$300.00	Mattress replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,707.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,707.94

Lorraine Felanuai Taulu must pay [The landlord/s] $2,707.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Damaged walls$575.00 Repainting$862.50 Carpet Cleaning$300.00 Cleaning: Cleaning$300.00 Rubbish removal$350.00 Mattress replacement$300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,707.94 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,707.94

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared via phone as the landlord’s agent.

The tenant did not appear.

[The landlord’s representative] requested that he be permitted to appear via phone in the early morning today because the property manager “had personal things need to do at 01/11/2023, we have no one can come to the hearing...”

As the landlord’s application is not complex. I granted [The landlord’s representative] application to attend the hearing via phone.

[The landlord’s representative] confirmed the tenant vacated the premises on 4 July 2023.

The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning

The cleaning claim has been reduced from $50 to $30 per hour for a total of 10 hours. While it is acknowledged that the tenant did not leave the premises in a clean and tidy condition, [The landlord’s representative] did not provide evidence that $50 per hour is the appropriate market rate for cleaning services. The amount awarded for cleaning for $300 includes GST. Rubbish removal

[The landlord’s representative] said in evidence “We have to get the car and we have to get everything loading on the car, and we have to bring them driving the car to the rubbish station and we have to throw away for that. This is all that our company did.”

However, [The landlord’s representative] did not provide any evidence to support his claim that $500 plus GST was the appropriate amount to charge. For instance, how many trips he had to travel between the premises and dumping station and how much time used ... etc. After reviewing [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence, I found it insufficient to prove that $500 plus GST was a reasonable amount to charge for the rubbish removal.

I reduced the cost of rubbish removal from $500 plus GST to $350 inclusive of GST. It should be noted that the tenant had left rubbish on the premises.

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: a. Damage to the walls; b. Repaint c. Replace oven; d. Replace kitchen cupboard door e. Replace mattress due to dirt f. Bathroom sliding door repair; g. Replace broken power plug. Damage to the walls and repaint

[The landlord’s representative] submitted evidence indicating that the damage to the walls was intentional. I am more satisfied the tenant or person in the premises with the tenant’s consent intentionally applied force to the walls.

Regarding the repainting of the walls, it is uncertain how much repainting is required. It is worth considering if some of the dirt can be cleaned during the cleaning process.

While it was necessary to repaint the walls after the repair work, I do not accept the amount of $1,000 plus GST is reasonable for the repainting.

Therefore, I award the full amount requested for the repair of the damaged walls but reduce the repainting cost from $1,000 plus GST to $750 plus GST (or $862.50).

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Replace oven

[The landlord’s representative] claimed that the oven's handle was missing and the seal was broken. He said in evidence that he was unable to find a replacement part for the handle or the oven glass. [The landlord’s representative] submitted that the only solution was to replace the entire oven. He claimed $850 plus GST or $977.50 for a new oven.

The evidence clearly showed the handle was missing, but I couldn't tell if the seal was broken. [The landlord’s representative] confirmed that he had been unable to find the replacement parts for the oven. Although the evidence showed that the oven did not have a handle post-tenancy, it was not enough to satisfy me that the oven was beyond repair.

[The landlord’s representative] gave an example of a damaged car bumper, where if no replacement part were available, the entire bumper would need to be replaced. While his analogy may be correct, [The landlord’s representative] had the burden to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy me that replacing the oven was necessary. The evidence before me only suggested that the oven handle was missing, nothing more.

Accordingly, I dismiss the claim for a new oven. Replace kitchen cupboard door

Based on the evidence submitted, it is clear that the cupboard door was broken. The question at hand is whether the door broke due to fair wear and tear or some other factor. Upon reviewing the photo, I am unable to ascertain if the door was intentionally forced open. However, it is evident that the door is broken.

Based on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude on the balance of probabilities that the tenant intentionally broke the cupboard door. It is more likely that the damage was caused by fair wear and tear over time.

Accordingly, the claim for replacing the cupboard door is dismissed. Replace mattress due to dirt.

Based on the evidence presented to me, it is clear that the mattress is in a dirty condition with stains on it. However, it is not clear what caused the stains or what type of fluid caused the stains on the mattress. It is reasonable to assume that any person who saw the condition of the mattress would not be comfortable sleeping on it.

During his evidence, [The landlord’s representative] stated that the mattress was brand new when the tenant moved in. However, after 15 months of use, it was not in an acceptable condition. Therefore, it is appropriate to replace the mattress.

[The landlord’s representative] sought $420 including GST for the replacement of the mattress. However, after considering depreciation, I consider that $300 including GST is a fair amount to replace the mattress.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Bathroom sliding door repair

[The landlord’s representative] did not submit any evidence to support this claim.

The claim under this heading is dismissed. Replace broken power plug

Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that the power plug was broken (one of the switches was missing) during the tenancy. I asked [The landlord’s representative] if replacing the power plug would cost $230 including GST, to which he responded that a qualified electrician had to do the job. However, [The landlord’s representative] did not provide any evidence to support this claim, except for an invoice from his own company, "FR Foundation” claiming for the cost of replacing the broken power plug.

Even if the power plug were broken during the tenancy, [The landlord’s representative] would still have to prove that a missing switch on the power plug was not due to fair wear and tear. Unfortunately, the evidence submitted by [The landlord’s representative] fell short of satisfying this requirement.

There is no evidence to suggest or support the contention that the tenant had intentionally used force on the power plug resulting in a switch gone missing. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the tenant is responsible for the broken power plug.

Accordingly, the claim under this heading is dismissed.

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. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639390 — net $2,707.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Damaged walls	$575.00	Repairs: Damaged walls
Repainting	$862.50	Repainting
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning: Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Mattress replacement	$300.00	Mattress replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,707.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,707.94