What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648810 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4648810?

Cleaning: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,353.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,900.67 awarded to landlord; Painting: $13,340.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5,924.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9563514-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648810 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4648810?

Cleaning: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,353.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,900.67 awarded to landlord; Painting: $13,340.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $5,924.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9563514-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648810 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648810 — net $32,918.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 30 July 2023	$6,353.00	Rent arrears (to 30 July 2023
Cleaning	$1,380.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$5,924.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet Replacement	$6,900.67	Repairs: Carpet Replacement
Repairs: Painting	$13,340.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$32,918.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$32,918.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sophie Lee Levy Kennedy must pay [The landlord/s] $32,918.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 30 July 2023)$6,353.00 Cleaning$1,380.00 Rubbish removal$5,924.00 Repairs: Carpet Replacement$6,900.67 Repairs: Painting$13,340.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$33,918.11 Bond$1,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$32,918.11
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $6,353.00 owing at 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy. Significant cleaning is required and there is a large volume of rubbish to be removed from the premises.
The work has not yet been completed and the landlord provided quotes for cleaning, rubbish removal and skip hire. The work clearly needs to be done for the property to be habitable. The quotes are, generally, consistent with costs awarded for similar sized properties, in similar condition to this one. I have made a deduction of $500 to the amount claimed for labour to remove rubbish as 40 hours is likely to be sufficient for that task (based on similar sized jobs that come before the Tribunal).

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.
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 landlord claimed that painted surfaces were damaged and carpet was, effectively, destroyed during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs from the start and end of the tenancy. The tenant had painted surfaces, to a poor standard and without consent, and had damaged other painted surfaces. The carpet had multiple stains including excrement throughout.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I also find that the damage is intentional. The tenant deliberately set about the painting work. The carpet damage is a result of children and/or animals being allowed to continue toileting on the carpet.
The landlord claimed $19,481.00 for painting costs. I find that the claims for the garage, doors & frames and walls are proved. However, the landlord did not give evidence to establish that the ceilings or reveals need to be repainted because of damage by the tenant. Those aspects of the claim are dismissed.
The claim for replacement carpet was $10,351. The ingoing photographs show the carpet was in average or reasonable condition with some staining. The age of the carpet is not known. Taking into account depreciation and betterment, I award $6,990.67 for carpet replacement.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted its request for suppression of its details. The Tenant Application
The tenant did not attend the hearings at the scheduled times on 18 September or today.
Following the hearing on 18 September 2023, I issued directions to the parties advising them that they must submit any further documents in support of their claims to the Tribunal at least five days before the next hearing. The tenant did not submit any documentation.
The tenant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 9:30am today. The adjournment request was made at 9:43pm the evening before the hearing. The request was not supported by evidence. Registry staff made numerous attempts (by phone and email) to contact the tenant before the hearing to obtain evidence in support of the adjournment request. Those attempts were unsuccessful. The tenant was advised that, in the absence of supporting evidence, the hearing would proceed as scheduled.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648810 — net $32,918.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 30 July 2023	$6,353.00	Rent arrears (to 30 July 2023
Cleaning	$1,380.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$5,924.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Carpet Replacement	$6,900.67	Repairs: Carpet Replacement
Repairs: Painting	$13,340.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$32,918.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$32,918.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Sophie Lee Levy Kennedy must pay [The landlord/s] $32,918.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 30 July 2023)$6,353.00 Cleaning$1,380.00 Rubbish removal$5,924.00 Repairs: Carpet Replacement$6,900.67 Repairs: Painting$13,340.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$33,918.11 Bond$1,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$32,918.11
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $6,353.00 owing at 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy. Significant cleaning is required and there is a large volume of rubbish to be removed from the premises.
The work has not yet been completed and the landlord provided quotes for cleaning, rubbish removal and skip hire. The work clearly needs to be done for the property to be habitable. The quotes are, generally, consistent with costs awarded for similar sized properties, in similar condition to this one. I have made a deduction of $500 to the amount claimed for labour to remove rubbish as 40 hours is likely to be sufficient for that task (based on similar sized jobs that come before the Tribunal).

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.
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 landlord claimed that painted surfaces were damaged and carpet was, effectively, destroyed during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs from the start and end of the tenancy. The tenant had painted surfaces, to a poor standard and without consent, and had damaged other painted surfaces. The carpet had multiple stains including excrement throughout.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I also find that the damage is intentional. The tenant deliberately set about the painting work. The carpet damage is a result of children and/or animals being allowed to continue toileting on the carpet.
The landlord claimed $19,481.00 for painting costs. I find that the claims for the garage, doors & frames and walls are proved. However, the landlord did not give evidence to establish that the ceilings or reveals need to be repainted because of damage by the tenant. Those aspects of the claim are dismissed.
The claim for replacement carpet was $10,351. The ingoing photographs show the carpet was in average or reasonable condition with some staining. The age of the carpet is not known. Taking into account depreciation and betterment, I award $6,990.67 for carpet replacement.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted its request for suppression of its details. The Tenant Application
The tenant did not attend the hearings at the scheduled times on 18 September or today.
Following the hearing on 18 September 2023, I issued directions to the parties advising them that they must submit any further documents in support of their claims to the Tribunal at least five days before the next hearing. The tenant did not submit any documentation.
The tenant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 9:30am today. The adjournment request was made at 9:43pm the evening before the hearing. The request was not supported by evidence. Registry staff made numerous attempts (by phone and email) to contact the tenant before the hearing to obtain evidence in support of the adjournment request. Those attempts were unsuccessful. The tenant was advised that, in the absence of supporting evidence, the hearing would proceed as scheduled.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648810 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648810 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions