What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645162 about?

The tribunal order states: Herangi Joe Cooper and Angelina Awhina King must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4645162?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4605039 D…: $1,121.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Air-Conditioning Remote: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Hand Basin Plug: $5.64 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet: $297.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,708.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645162?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9652939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645162 about?

The tribunal order states: Herangi Joe Cooper and Angelina Awhina King must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4645162?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4605039 D…: $1,121.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Air-Conditioning Remote: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Hand Basin Plug: $5.64 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet: $297.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,708.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645162?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9652939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645162 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645162 — net $4,308.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4605039 dated 13/07/2023	$1,121.87	Previous order application 4605039 dated 13/07/2023
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$225.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$115.96	Lock/key replacement
Replace hand basin plug	$5.64	Replace hand basin plug
Replace toilet	$297.00	Replace toilet
Repairs to walls and doors	$1,708.13	Repairs to walls and doors
Replace air-conditioning remote	$51.75	Replace air-conditioning remote
Repairs to broken window and window stays	$402.50	Repairs to broken window and window stays
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,308.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,308.29

[The landlord’s representatives] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears on 13 July 2023. On 02 August 2023, the landlord filed a claim for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet, and remove all rubbish, and that the tenant failed to return the keys. The landlord seeks $360.00 for cleaning, $225.00 to clean the carpet, and $115.96 to re barrel and re key the locks.

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) of the Act.

The property was constructed in the 1970’s and has two bedrooms, bathroom, toilet, kitchen, and lounge / dining room. The landlord states that the property had been freshly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy, and that the tenant was then the first to occupy the property. The carpet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs showing the properties state of cleanliness at the end of the tenancy. Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean, including the carpet, which has areas of soiling, and to remove all rubbish. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full.

The pre tenancy checklist shows that the tenant was provided with two sets of keys to the front door and a ranchslider entrance. After hearing from the landlord, I am satisfied the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed to re barrel and re key the locks is reasonable and awarded in full.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful Shower waste cover, power point, basin plug

The landlord claims that the shower waste cover, a power point in the kitchen, and the basin plug in the bathroom were damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is claiming $6.19 to replace the shower waste cover, $11.60 to replace the power point, and $5.64 to replace the plug.

The landlord has produced a photograph of the shower waste cover. The waste cover is made of plastic and was approximately two years old. I accept that the waste cover was cracked and that this likely occurred during the tenancy. However, the photograph showing the damage is not clear. It is not possible to make a proper objective assessment concerning the nature of the damage. The shower is usually a high use area. I cannot rule out that the damage is no more than fair wear and tear. The power point was not replaced in the refurbishment. One of the switches has been damaged. The power point is faded and shows signs of wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage shown is more than fair wear and tear. The plug to the bathroom hand basin is the type that screws in place. It has been removed and was unable to be located. Removing the plug required an intentional act. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for replacing the plug. I award $5.64 to replace the plug. Toilet

The landlord has produced a photograph showing the cistern lid of the toilet which has a large crack to one corner. The toilet was new at the commencement of the tenancy and undamaged. The landlord states that the lid of the cistern has likely been removed and then dropped. The damage appears consistent with this explanation. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and on the evidence is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord states that the cistern lid cannot be replaced on its own and that the whole toilet required replacing. The amount claimed is reasonable. The toilet was new at the commencement of the tenancy. I am making no deduction for betterment or depreciation. Damage to walls and doors and kitchen cabinetry.

As stated, that walls had been freshly painted at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre tenancy checklist records a small dent in the wall by the pantry in the kitchen, a small dent in the wall in bedroom two, and a dent in the door to the linen cupboard. The landlord has produced photographs showing damage to five doors, and minor damage to walls throughout the property, over and above that recorded in the checklist. The landlord has also produced a photograph of the front of a kitchen drawer that has come off, and a door hinge which is damaged. The landlord states that the kitchen cabinetry was new at the commencement of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy, and due to the nature of the damage, that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The amount claimed to repair the damage is reasonable. I am making no deduction for betterment or depreciation. Heat pump remote control and window and window security stays

The landlord has produced a photograph of a broken window and window stays. The window is in aluminium joinery and has a large crack in it. Two security stays on either side of the window are also damaged. The landlord states that the window has likely been forced open damaging the window and the window stays. This appears to be consistent with the photographs. I am satisfied that the damage to the window and security stays have occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord states that during the tenancy they replaced the heat pump which included a new remote control. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the back of the remote at the end of the tenancy. The cover to the battery compartment is missing as are the contact points for the batteries. I am satisfied that the damage to the remote occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The amounts claimed to repair the window, window security stays, and the remote control are reasonable and awarded in full. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645162 — net $4,308.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4605039 dated 13/07/2023	$1,121.87	Previous order application 4605039 dated 13/07/2023
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$225.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$115.96	Lock/key replacement
Replace hand basin plug	$5.64	Replace hand basin plug
Replace toilet	$297.00	Replace toilet
Repairs to walls and doors	$1,708.13	Repairs to walls and doors
Replace air-conditioning remote	$51.75	Replace air-conditioning remote
Repairs to broken window and window stays	$402.50	Repairs to broken window and window stays
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,308.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,308.29

[The landlord’s representatives] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears on 13 July 2023. On 02 August 2023, the landlord filed a claim for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645162 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645162 — Property damage

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 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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions