What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4654559 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 4654559?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Piano Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; (Downstairs Bedroom Light Fitting: $172.50 awarded to landlord; (Holes In Downstairs Bedroom Wall: $258.75 awarded to landlord; (Marks On Downstairs Bedroom Walls: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord; (Replace Glass In Front Door: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4654559 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 4654559?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Piano Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; (Downstairs Bedroom Light Fitting: $172.50 awarded to landlord; (Holes In Downstairs Bedroom Wall: $258.75 awarded to landlord; (Marks On Downstairs Bedroom Walls: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord; (Replace Glass In Front Door: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4654559 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4654559 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4654559 — net $2,991.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$184.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Repairs: (replace glass in front door	$258.75	Repairs: (replace glass in front door
Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop	$690.00	Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop
Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall	$258.75	Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall
Repairs: (downstairs bedroom light fitting	$172.50	Repairs: (downstairs bedroom light fitting
Repairs: (marks on downstairs bedroom walls	$172.50	Repairs: (marks on downstairs bedroom walls
Piano removal	$500.00	Piano removal
Rubbish removal	$160.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,991.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,991.94

Claims and awards for application 4654559 — net $2,991.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: (replace glass in front door

Amount: $258.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (replace glass in front door

Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop

Amount: $690.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop

Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall

Amount: $258.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Liam Jensen Jaques and Sebastian Michael Pryor must pay [the landlord/s] $2,991.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
It is inequitable for the landlord to pursue Sebastian Michael Pryor for any of the $2,991.94 debt owed to it and it is estopped from enforcing the debt against him.

Reasons

The landlord and Mr Pryor attended the hearing. Mr Jacques was not present.
I am satisfied that Mr Jacques had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
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 tenants 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 tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
Mr Jacques did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
Mr Jacques did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants jointly and severally liable for the debt?

On 24 January 2024, I adjourned this matter as Mr Pryor had appealed the Tribunal’s 15 June 2023 decision 1 on 5 July 2023, which held him and Mr Jacques jointly responsible for the arrears of rates, bin hire and rent arrears which amounted to $13,328.45.
Mr Pryor claimed that the landlord had not advised him of the debts being accrued and it had denied him the opportunity to take steps to address the loss and/or mitigate it.
There were two tenancy agreements, one had Mr Jacques named as the sole tenant. The second had Both Mr Jacques and Mr Pryor named as joint tenants. The landlord relied on the second Agreement to pursue Mr Pryor and well as Mr Jacques for all debts related to the tenancy.
Mr Pryor paid his half of the rent to Mr Jacques and Mr Jacques, as head tenant, paid the full rent to the landlord. The only contact details for the tenants provided to the landlord were for Mr Jacques. Consequently, all communications with the tenants were directed to Mr Jacques.
Judge Davenport in her 23 January 2024 judgment held 2 : a. The landlord had Mr Pryor’s email address and telephone number and failed to inform him of the accruing debts; 1 Jacques and Pryor v Sunshine Property Group Ltd, [2023] NZTT 4516570,4540669. 2 Pryor v Sunshine Property Group Ltd [2023] NZDC, CIV 2023-044-001019, 23 January 2023 at Auckland. b. Mr Jacques acknowledged liability for the tenancy related debts and confirmed Mr Pryor was not responsible for any part of these debts; c. In law a party who is a joint convenantor to a contract is jointly liable for the obligations of that contract and Mr Pryor could sue Mr Jacques to offset his obligation to the landlord and as Mr Jacques has recognised his sole liability there would be no difficulty in taking this step; d. The landlord has an obligation, pursuant to s49 of the RTA, to “take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract” and it did not. Therefore, Mr Pryor could not mitigate the loss and he had paid all that was due by him to Mr Jacques; e. The landlord is estopped from enforcing the arrears against Mr Pryor.
I am satisfied that it is also inequitable for the landlord to pursue Sebastian Michael Pryor for any of the $2,991.94 debt owed to it in paragraph [2] of the Order above and it is estopped from enforcing any of this debt against him.

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. The bottom glass on front door was broken; b. The kitchen benchtop had cuts in it; c. The light in the downstairs bedroom was damaged; d. Numerous tiny holes in the downstairs bedrooms doors and wall; e. Many scratch and damages on downstairs bedrooms wall, need to repair. f. The carpet on second floor balcony was damp because the tenants left the balcony doors for more than 3 months; g. Some power points in downstairs bedrooms were loose and broken; h. One of the stairs was loose and needed repair; i. The living room tiles had big scratches on them.
Except for the stairs, I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the landlord that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants disproved liability for the damage to the stairs stating the stair was loose when their tenancy began and had not been repaired. The evidence given by Mr Pryor was that the stair needed to be reglued and it was not damage deliberately or intentionally caused by either tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the applicant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4654559 — net $2,991.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$184.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Repairs: (replace glass in front door	$258.75	Repairs: (replace glass in front door
Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop	$690.00	Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop
Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall	$258.75	Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall
Repairs: (downstairs bedroom light fitting	$172.50	Repairs: (downstairs bedroom light fitting
Repairs: (marks on downstairs bedroom walls	$172.50	Repairs: (marks on downstairs bedroom walls
Piano removal	$500.00	Piano removal
Rubbish removal	$160.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,991.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,991.94

Claims and awards for application 4654559 — net $2,991.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $184.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $575.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: (replace glass in front door

Amount: $258.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (replace glass in front door

Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop

Amount: $690.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (repair kitchen benchtop

Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall

Amount: $258.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (holes in downstairs bedroom wall

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Liam Jensen Jaques and Sebastian Michael Pryor must pay [the landlord/s] $2,991.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
It is inequitable for the landlord to pursue Sebastian Michael Pryor for any of the $2,991.94 debt owed to it and it is estopped from enforcing the debt against him.

Reasons

The landlord and Mr Pryor attended the hearing. Mr Jacques was not present.
I am satisfied that Mr Jacques had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
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 tenants 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 tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
Mr Jacques did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
Mr Jacques did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants jointly and severally liable for the debt?

On 24 January 2024, I adjourned this matter as Mr Pryor had appealed the Tribunal’s 15 June 2023 decision 1 on 5 July 2023, which held him and Mr Jacques jointly responsible for the arrears of rates, bin hire and rent arrears which amounted to $13,328.45.
Mr Pryor claimed that the landlord had not advised him of the debts being accrued and it had denied him the opportunity to take steps to address the loss and/or mitigate it.
There were two tenancy agreements, one had Mr Jacques named as the sole tenant. The second had Both Mr Jacques and Mr Pryor named as joint tenants. The landlord relied on the second Agreement to pursue Mr Pryor and well as Mr Jacques for all debts related to the tenancy.
Mr Pryor paid his half of the rent to Mr Jacques and Mr Jacques, as head tenant, paid the full rent to the landlord. The only contact details for the tenants provided to the landlord were for Mr Jacques. Consequently, all communications with the tenants were directed to Mr Jacques.
Judge Davenport in her 23 January 2024 judgment held 2 : a. The landlord had Mr Pryor’s email address and telephone number and failed to inform him of the accruing debts; 1 Jacques and Pryor v Sunshine Property Group Ltd, [2023] NZTT 4516570,4540669. 2 Pryor v Sunshine Property Group Ltd [2023] NZDC, CIV 2023-044-001019, 23 January 2023 at Auckland. b. Mr Jacques acknowledged liability for the tenancy related debts and confirmed Mr Pryor was not responsible for any part of these debts; c. In law a party who is a joint convenantor to a contract is jointly liable for the obligations of that contract and Mr Pryor could sue Mr Jacques to offset his obligation to the landlord and as Mr Jacques has recognised his sole liability there would be no difficulty in taking this step; d. The landlord has an obligation, pursuant to s49 of the RTA, to “take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract” and it did not. Therefore, Mr Pryor could not mitigate the loss and he had paid all that was due by him to Mr Jacques; e. The landlord is estopped from enforcing the arrears against Mr Pryor.
I am satisfied that it is also inequitable for the landlord to pursue Sebastian Michael Pryor for any of the $2,991.94 debt owed to it in paragraph [2] of the Order above and it is estopped from enforcing any of this debt against him.

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. The bottom glass on front door was broken; b. The kitchen benchtop had cuts in it; c. The light in the downstairs bedroom was damaged; d. Numerous tiny holes in the downstairs bedrooms doors and wall; e. Many scratch and damages on downstairs bedrooms wall, need to repair. f. The carpet on second floor balcony was damp because the tenants left the balcony doors for more than 3 months; g. Some power points in downstairs bedrooms were loose and broken; h. One of the stairs was loose and needed repair; i. The living room tiles had big scratches on them.
Except for the stairs, I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the landlord that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants disproved liability for the damage to the stairs stating the stair was loose when their tenancy began and had not been repaired. The evidence given by Mr Pryor was that the stair needed to be reglued and it was not damage deliberately or intentionally caused by either tenant.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the applicant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654559 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654559 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants jointly and severally liable for the debt?

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

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

Are the tenants jointly and severally liable for the debt?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions