What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650712 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucrecia Dixon must pay [The landlord/s] $4,670.01 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4650712?

Cleaning: $1,032.06 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Less Rent Credit: $94.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $837.00 awarded to landlord; Reglaze Broken Glass In Window In Lo…: $248.82 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,302.83 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $523.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650712?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9626169-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650712 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucrecia Dixon must pay [The landlord/s] $4,670.01 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4650712?

Cleaning: $1,032.06 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Less Rent Credit: $94.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $837.00 awarded to landlord; Reglaze Broken Glass In Window In Lo…: $248.82 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,302.83 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $523.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650712?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9626169-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4650712 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650712 — net $4,670.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,302.83		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,032.06		Cleaning
Repair damage to walls & door handle	$800.00		Repair damage to walls & door handle
Reglaze broken glass in window in lounge	$248.82		Reglaze broken glass in window in lounge
Lock/key & smoke alarm replacement	$523.00		Lock/key & smoke alarm replacement
New oven door & repairs	$837.00		New oven door & repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less rent credit		$94.14	Less rent credit
Total award	$4,764.15	$94.14
Net award	$4,670.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,670.01

The agent for the landlord attended the hearing. The other party did not attend. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding.

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 landlord has proven in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord relied on the ingoing and outgoing property inspection report, photographs and invoices.

The photographs show the premises were left in a very unclean state. There was substantial rubbish throughout the entire property. Although the amounts claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal are at the higher end – they are warranted given the poor state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

I also accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not return the keys and smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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: the carpet was heavily stained, the oven door was damaged, there was damage to the walls and a door handle was broken, there was a broken window in the lounge. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are 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. 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: -As the oven was new at the start of the tenancy, I did not consider depreciation applied to the claim for a new over door/repairs. -The landlord was unable to confirm the age of the carpet. Looking at the photographs the condition of carpet appears to be old and worn and likely exceeded its estimated life (approximately 10 years). Therefore, no compensation can be awarded and the landlord’s claim for replacement of the carpet is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression orders

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the other party to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650712 — net $4,670.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,302.83		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,032.06		Cleaning
Repair damage to walls & door handle	$800.00		Repair damage to walls & door handle
Reglaze broken glass in window in lounge	$248.82		Reglaze broken glass in window in lounge
Lock/key & smoke alarm replacement	$523.00		Lock/key & smoke alarm replacement
New oven door & repairs	$837.00		New oven door & repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less rent credit		$94.14	Less rent credit
Total award	$4,764.15	$94.14
Net award	$4,670.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,670.01

Order

Lucrecia Dixon must pay [The landlord/s] $4,670.01 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim for carpet replacement of $2,100.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

The agent for the landlord attended the hearing. The other party did not attend. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding.
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 landlord has proven in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord relied on the ingoing and outgoing property inspection report, photographs and invoices.
The photographs show the premises were left in a very unclean state. There was substantial rubbish throughout the entire property. Although the amounts claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal are at the higher end – they are warranted given the poor state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I also accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant did not return the keys and smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: the carpet was heavily stained, the oven door was damaged, there was damage to the walls and a door handle was broken, there was a broken window in the lounge. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are 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. 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: -As the oven was new at the start of the tenancy, I did not consider depreciation applied to the claim for a new over door/repairs. -The landlord was unable to confirm the age of the carpet. Looking at the photographs the condition of carpet appears to be old and worn and likely exceeded its estimated life (approximately 10 years). Therefore, no compensation can be awarded and the landlord’s claim for replacement of the carpet is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression orders
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the other party to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650712 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650712 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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