What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642856 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4642856?

Cleaning: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $954.01 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes: $249.55 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $42.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $646.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $157.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $269.10 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,715.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $774.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $87.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642856?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642856?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9446884-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642856 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4642856?

Cleaning: $1,012.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $954.01 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes: $249.55 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $42.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $646.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $157.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $269.10 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,715.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $774.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $87.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642856?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642856?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9446884-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Hunt Lane, Avondale, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642856 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4642856 — net $6,108.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 June 2023	$3,715.00	Rent arrears to 2 June 2023
Window repairs	$400.34	Window repairs
Cleaning	$954.01	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$774.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$1,012.00	Carpet Cleaning
Heat pump damage	$200.00	Heat pump damage
Lock/key replacement	$646.83	Lock/key replacement
Garage door remotes	$249.55	Garage door remotes
Light bulbs	$42.80	Light bulbs
Wall damage	$1,000.00	Wall damage
Kitchen drawer and laundry damage	$157.60	Kitchen drawer and laundry damage
Shower waste damage	$269.10	Shower waste damage
Smoke alarm	$87.26	Smoke alarm
Net award	$6,108.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,108.99

The landlord’s daughter, Katherine Kok, attended the hearing for the landlord who is abroad. Ms Kok did not manage the tenancy, but she attended to the end of tenancy requirements. The tenants did not attend.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 2 June 2023. The landlord has received the bond.

I note that the landlord provided some additional photographs after the hearing, and I have considered those photographs. They added very little to the evidence already on the file. Rent

The landlord provided rent records showing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as $3,825. The records showed a charge of $50 for legal fees and two charges of $30 which Ms Kok could not explain and so I have deducted them from the arrears figure leaving $3,715. The Tenant’s Other Obligations

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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage 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

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).

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).

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.

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 must consider the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Cleaning, Rubbish Removal, Locks and Remotes

The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and rubbish was not removed.

The amounts awarded under this heading were proved by the production of photographs, invoices and by evidence given by Ms Kok.

Carpet throughout the premises was stained and so the cost of carpet cleaning and satin removal was higher than usual.

This was a six-bedroom house that included a granny flat. There were therefore two kitchens to be cleaned. There was no evidence that the tenants had done any end of tenancy cleaning.

The landlord employed a contractor to do most of the rubbish removal, but she did some of it herself and claimed for trailer hire and dump fees that have been awarded.

The tenants did not return the keys to the premises at the end of the tenancy and four locks had to be changed.

The tenants did not return the two garage remotes and so they had to be replaced and programmed.

There were 20 light bulbs that were either missing or not working at the end of the tenancy.

A smoke alarm was also missing at the end of the tenancy. Damage

The amounts awarded under this heading were proved by the production of photographs, invoices and evidence given by Ms Kok.

Two windows were broken during the tenancy and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

A grill was missing from the indoor unit of one of the heat pumps. The landlord replaced the unit and claims $1,385.03 being the cost of a second-hand unit and installation.

Ms Kok said that she tried to get a replacement part, but she did not get a response to her enquiry. She did not check to see if the heat pump was working. The heat pump was installed approximately 10 years ago. It was a second-hand unit then, salvaged from an earthquake damaged property.

There is no evidence that the heat pump was not in working order and therefore I assume that it was. It would be unreasonable to award the cost of replacing the unit in those circumstances. There is also the age of the unit to consider. It may well have been close or at the end of its expected life.

The only thing that has been established is that there was a part missing and I do not accept that the landlord has made reasonable efforts to find a replacement. I estimate that a replacement part could have been obtained at a cost of $200 and so that is what I have awarded.

There were some areas of minor damage to the premises that exceed fair wear and tear. They were two kitchen drawer handles that were missing, a broken kitchen drawer, a broken panel in the laundry and a broken shower waste. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord claims $3,545.15 for repair and painting walls in the premises. The invoice refers to plastering of damage at a cost of $929.20 and painting 175m² of walls. That is walls 73m in total length. The walls are not identified on the invoice.

The landlord’s photographs show 3 walls that appear to have markings on them, and I accept they needed painting. There was evidence from Ms Kok, but the problem is that without photographs showing the walls that needed painting, I am unable to determine whether the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. It is reasonable to expect landlords in this situation to provide comprehensive photographs showing the damage claimed for.

I must also take into consideration the fact that the premises were last decorated approximately ten years ago.

I accept that some walls needed repair and painting and I award $1,000 for the cost of repair and painting. Filing Fee

The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4642856 — net $6,108.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 June 2023	$3,715.00	Rent arrears to 2 June 2023
Window repairs	$400.34	Window repairs
Cleaning	$954.01	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$774.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$1,012.00	Carpet Cleaning
Heat pump damage	$200.00	Heat pump damage
Lock/key replacement	$646.83	Lock/key replacement
Garage door remotes	$249.55	Garage door remotes
Light bulbs	$42.80	Light bulbs
Wall damage	$1,000.00	Wall damage
Kitchen drawer and laundry damage	$157.60	Kitchen drawer and laundry damage
Shower waste damage	$269.10	Shower waste damage
Smoke alarm	$87.26	Smoke alarm
Net award	$6,108.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,108.99

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,108.99 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord’s daughter, Katherine Kok, attended the hearing for the landlord who is abroad. Ms Kok did not manage the tenancy, but she attended to the end of tenancy requirements. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 2 June 2023. The landlord has received the bond.
I note that the landlord provided some additional photographs after the hearing, and I have considered those photographs. They added very little to the evidence already on the file. Rent
The landlord provided rent records showing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as $3,825. The records showed a charge of $50 for legal fees and two charges of $30 which Ms Kok could not explain and so I have deducted them from the arrears figure leaving $3,715. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage 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
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).
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).
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.
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 must consider the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Cleaning, Rubbish Removal, Locks and Remotes
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and rubbish was not removed.
The amounts awarded under this heading were proved by the production of photographs, invoices and by evidence given by Ms Kok.
Carpet throughout the premises was stained and so the cost of carpet cleaning and satin removal was higher than usual.
This was a six-bedroom house that included a granny flat. There were therefore two kitchens to be cleaned. There was no evidence that the tenants had done any end of tenancy cleaning.
The landlord employed a contractor to do most of the rubbish removal, but she did some of it herself and claimed for trailer hire and dump fees that have been awarded.
The tenants did not return the keys to the premises at the end of the tenancy and four locks had to be changed.
The tenants did not return the two garage remotes and so they had to be replaced and programmed.
There were 20 light bulbs that were either missing or not working at the end of the tenancy.
A smoke alarm was also missing at the end of the tenancy. Damage
The amounts awarded under this heading were proved by the production of photographs, invoices and evidence given by Ms Kok.
Two windows were broken during the tenancy and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
A grill was missing from the indoor unit of one of the heat pumps. The landlord replaced the unit and claims $1,385.03 being the cost of a second-hand unit and installation.
Ms Kok said that she tried to get a replacement part, but she did not get a response to her enquiry. She did not check to see if the heat pump was working. The heat pump was installed approximately 10 years ago. It was a second-hand unit then, salvaged from an earthquake damaged property.
There is no evidence that the heat pump was not in working order and therefore I assume that it was. It would be unreasonable to award the cost of replacing the unit in those circumstances. There is also the age of the unit to consider. It may well have been close or at the end of its expected life.
The only thing that has been established is that there was a part missing and I do not accept that the landlord has made reasonable efforts to find a replacement. I estimate that a replacement part could have been obtained at a cost of $200 and so that is what I have awarded.
There were some areas of minor damage to the premises that exceed fair wear and tear. They were two kitchen drawer handles that were missing, a broken kitchen drawer, a broken panel in the laundry and a broken shower waste. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims $3,545.15 for repair and painting walls in the premises. The invoice refers to plastering of damage at a cost of $929.20 and painting 175m² of walls. That is walls 73m in total length. The walls are not identified on the invoice.
The landlord’s photographs show 3 walls that appear to have markings on them, and I accept they needed painting. There was evidence from Ms Kok, but the problem is that without photographs showing the walls that needed painting, I am unable to determine whether the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. It is reasonable to expect landlords in this situation to provide comprehensive photographs showing the damage claimed for.
I must also take into consideration the fact that the premises were last decorated approximately ten years ago.
I accept that some walls needed repair and painting and I award $1,000 for the cost of repair and painting. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642856 — Rent arrears at 5 Hunt Lane, Avondale, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642856 — Rent arrears at 5 Hunt Lane, Avondale, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions