What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4655570?

The tribunal order states: This order incorporates two previous Tribunal orders. The first was made on 30

How much money was awarded in case 4655570?

Cleaning: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4535180 D…: $16,994.73 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4594869 D…: $14,520.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655570?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9832310-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4655570?

The tribunal order states: This order incorporates two previous Tribunal orders. The first was made on 30

How much money was awarded in case 4655570?

Cleaning: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Eviction Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4535180 D…: $16,994.73 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4594869 D…: $14,520.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655570?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9832310-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

275 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655570 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655570 — net $5,154.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4535180 dated 30/05/2023	$16,994.73		Previous order application 4535180 dated 30/05/2023
Cleaning	$1,300.00		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$470.00		Lock/key replacement
Eviction fee	$200.00		Eviction fee
Window repairs	$690.00		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order application 4594869 dated 18/08/2023		$14,520.44	Previous order application 4594869 dated 18/08/2023
Total award	$19,675.17	$14,520.44
Net award	$5,154.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,154.73

Order

This order incorporates two previous Tribunal orders. The first was made on 30 May 2023 under application 4535180 and the second was made on 18 August 2023 under application 4594869.
Caroline Pamela Craven, Daniel Robinson, Joel Anthony Harkins and Matthew John Robinson must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Minhua Chen $5,154.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 30 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears of $19,134.29, reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44 and refund of the bond of $2,160.00 to be paid to the landlord. This previous order is for 4655570 2 $16,994.73 payable to the landlord is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
On 18 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of s45 (HHS and maintenance) of $3,600.00, compensation of $10,400.00 for building problems, exemplary damages of $500.00 for breach of s19 of the RTA (Bond) and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44 to the tenant. This previous order for $14,520.44 payable to the tenant is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has applied for compensation for vacated damages 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 tenants were evicted so the locks had to be changed and new keys cut.
The amounts ordered are proved by the landlord.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord made a claim for cleaning, which was accepted by the tenants and the amount claimed was proven.
The landlord also made claims for rubbish removal and the provision of a skip bin.
During the hearing, the landlord admitted that, after the 30 May 2023 Tribunal Order giving possession to the landlord on 6 June 2023, an agreement had been reached with the tenants that they could remain in the premises until they found somewhere to move to on the condition, they paid the full rent of $900.00 per week each week until they moved out. The tenants paid the rent of $900.00 each week from 6 June 2023 until they were evicted on 23 June 2023.
Prior to this agreement, the tenants claim the landlord aware they intended to file a counterclaim and would not be paying the $16,994.73 rent arrears until after their counter claim had been heard, as they were confident they would win their breach of healthy homes standards, failure to maintain, compensation claim for building problems and failure to lodge the bond claims and what ever they won would offset any rent they owed. The landlord refuted this, but the tenants lodged their application on 2 June 2023 and the landlord was served notice of this application and provided the evidence submitted by the tenants to 4655570 3 support their application. In addition, they sought a stay of enforcement of their eviction on 6 June 2023 and payment of the rent arrears ordered. This application was dismissed on 6 June 2023. Despite the 6 June 2023 order, the tenants continued to tell the landlord they would not pay the rent arrears ordered until after their cross application was heard. Therefore, the landlord was clear about the tenants’ intentions not to pay the rent arrears until their cross application was heard at the time they agreed not to enforce the eviction order on 6 June 2023 and to allow the tenants to remain in the property until they found alternative accommodation on the condition they paid $900 per week on time each week from 6 June 2023. The tenants met the agreed condition.
Despite the agreement between the parties, on 18 June 2023 a baliff gave 5 days’ notice to the tenants they would be evicted on 23 June 2023. The tenants informed the landlord they had not found anywhere to move to and asked for more notice to allow them time to move and store their possessions until they could find somewhere else to live. The landlord refused this request. The property manager confirmed at the hearing the owner of the property instructed the receptionist to arrange the eviction and the first the tenants knew of the eviction instruction was when the bailiff first contacted them on 18 June 2023 to give them a heads up they were to be evicted in 5 days. The tenants say they were shocked as they had not had any communication rom the landlord telling them the agreed conditional arrangement was being revoked without any consultation.
On 23 June 2023, a bailiff evicted the tenants, and they were required to leave all their belongings as they had no time to arrange storage or to find somewhere to move their property to.
On 25 June 2023, when the tenants went back to the house to pick up two animals they have left behind, they found trespass notices with their name on all over the premises. They were left in no uncertain terms that they were not permitted to enter the premises. They did not know how to access their belongings when they had been trespassed.
The property manager claims she tried to contact the tenants by text on 1 July 2023 to request a time for the tenants to collect their property. Ms Craven’s mobile number had been changed and so she never received this text. The landlord stated it then waited three weeks before disposing of the property in a skip bin. The tenants gave evidence the skip bin was at the premises on 6 July 2023 and was already being loaded when the tenants went to the property to pick up a lemon tree. The property manager could not confirm when the bin was ordered, but it was picked up and paid for on 12 July 2023 and contained all the rubbish and valuable property that belonged to the tenant, for example outdoor furniture, washing machine and dryer, fridge, cat carry cage, storage cabinet and the like. 4655570 4
Section 62 of the RTA confirms: (1) Where, on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant leaves on the premises foodstuffs or other perishable goods, the landlord may, immediately after taking possession of the premises, dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit; and (2) If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3) If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and must deal with the other goods either— (a) in accordance with section 62A; or (b) by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B.
Section 62A of the RTA confirms: (1) The landlord may deal with the goods to which section 62(3) applies, other than personal documents belonging to the tenant, by making all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods; (2) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may immediately dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (3) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord must secure those goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days from the date on which the landlord first took possession of those goods; (4) If, before the landlord disposes of the goods under subsection (5), the tenant claims the goods and any personal documents belonging to the tenant or claims either the goods or the documents,- (a) the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of the goods; and (b) the landlord must release to the tenant any goods and personal documents claimed by the tenant, subject to payment of any costs required under paragraph (a); and (c) the tenant must give the landlord a receipt for any goods and personal documents released to the tenant. (5) If, after the period of 35 days specified in subsection (3), the goods or any personal documents belonging to the tenant remain unclaimed, the landlord must— 4655570 5 (a) continue to secure those goods and personal documents in safe storage to await any claims by the tenant under subsection (4); or (b) do the following: (i) take any personal documents belonging to the tenant to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them from a Police employee; and (ii) sell the other goods by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price. (6) If the landlord has sold the goods under subsection (5)(b)(ii), the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for an order specifying the amount (if any) owing to the landlord out of the proceeds of sale.
The property manager confirmed that: (a) She tried to contact the tenants on 1 July 2023 but did not use any other form of communication, such as email, to ensure the tenants had received the text when they did not respond. The tenants stated they did not make contact as they thought they had been trespassed (due to the trespass notices posted all over the premises) and were not permitted to enter the premises under any circumstances; (b) not all the goods disposed of were perishable or actual rubbish, (c) the landlord made no effort at all to assess the market value of any of the property the tenants left in the premises before the property was placed into the skip bin, nor to assess the cost to store and transport any items that may have been saleable, nor did it ascertain whether any of the goods had a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them.
Without having undertaken this assessment, the landlord did not have the legal right to dispose of the tenant’s property in any way it thought fit.
In defence of the landlord’s rubbish removal claims, the tenants gave evidence some of the items had a saleable value of a similar value to the rubbish removal and skip bin costs. Photographic evidence provided to the Tribunal showed there were several items of value that could have been stored or sold to offset the rent arrears owed to the landlord or to offset the cost of removing rubbish left behind. As such, it is my finding that the landlord is in breach of ss62 and 62A of the RTA, the costs to the tenants of the loss of their property offsets the costs sought by the landlord to remove this property as refuse and the tenants successfully refuted liability for the costs of rubbish removal sought by the landlord.
In addition, s49 RTA confirms the landlord must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the tenants’ breach of the tenancy agreement. It did not. 4655570 6
For the reasons outlined above, the landlord’s claims for a skip bin and rubbish removal are declined. 4655570 7

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 tenants accepted they caused damage to some windows during their tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants did not disproved liability for the damage.
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. 4655570 8 Filing Fee
Because Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Minhua Chen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655570 — net $5,154.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4535180 dated 30/05/2023	$16,994.73		Previous order application 4535180 dated 30/05/2023
Cleaning	$1,300.00		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$470.00		Lock/key replacement
Eviction fee	$200.00		Eviction fee
Window repairs	$690.00		Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order application 4594869 dated 18/08/2023		$14,520.44	Previous order application 4594869 dated 18/08/2023
Total award	$19,675.17	$14,520.44
Net award	$5,154.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,154.73

Order

This order incorporates two previous Tribunal orders. The first was made on 30 May 2023 under application 4535180 and the second was made on 18 August 2023 under application 4594869.
Caroline Pamela Craven, Daniel Robinson, Joel Anthony Harkins and Matthew John Robinson must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Minhua Chen $5,154.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 30 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears of $19,134.29, reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44 and refund of the bond of $2,160.00 to be paid to the landlord. This previous order is for 4655570 2 $16,994.73 payable to the landlord is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
On 18 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of s45 (HHS and maintenance) of $3,600.00, compensation of $10,400.00 for building problems, exemplary damages of $500.00 for breach of s19 of the RTA (Bond) and reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44 to the tenant. This previous order for $14,520.44 payable to the tenant is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has applied for compensation for vacated damages 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 tenants were evicted so the locks had to be changed and new keys cut.
The amounts ordered are proved by the landlord.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord made a claim for cleaning, which was accepted by the tenants and the amount claimed was proven.
The landlord also made claims for rubbish removal and the provision of a skip bin.
During the hearing, the landlord admitted that, after the 30 May 2023 Tribunal Order giving possession to the landlord on 6 June 2023, an agreement had been reached with the tenants that they could remain in the premises until they found somewhere to move to on the condition, they paid the full rent of $900.00 per week each week until they moved out. The tenants paid the rent of $900.00 each week from 6 June 2023 until they were evicted on 23 June 2023.
Prior to this agreement, the tenants claim the landlord aware they intended to file a counterclaim and would not be paying the $16,994.73 rent arrears until after their counter claim had been heard, as they were confident they would win their breach of healthy homes standards, failure to maintain, compensation claim for building problems and failure to lodge the bond claims and what ever they won would offset any rent they owed. The landlord refuted this, but the tenants lodged their application on 2 June 2023 and the landlord was served notice of this application and provided the evidence submitted by the tenants to 4655570 3 support their application. In addition, they sought a stay of enforcement of their eviction on 6 June 2023 and payment of the rent arrears ordered. This application was dismissed on 6 June 2023. Despite the 6 June 2023 order, the tenants continued to tell the landlord they would not pay the rent arrears ordered until after their cross application was heard. Therefore, the landlord was clear about the tenants’ intentions not to pay the rent arrears until their cross application was heard at the time they agreed not to enforce the eviction order on 6 June 2023 and to allow the tenants to remain in the property until they found alternative accommodation on the condition they paid $900 per week on time each week from 6 June 2023. The tenants met the agreed condition.
Despite the agreement between the parties, on 18 June 2023 a baliff gave 5 days’ notice to the tenants they would be evicted on 23 June 2023. The tenants informed the landlord they had not found anywhere to move to and asked for more notice to allow them time to move and store their possessions until they could find somewhere else to live. The landlord refused this request. The property manager confirmed at the hearing the owner of the property instructed the receptionist to arrange the eviction and the first the tenants knew of the eviction instruction was when the bailiff first contacted them on 18 June 2023 to give them a heads up they were to be evicted in 5 days. The tenants say they were shocked as they had not had any communication rom the landlord telling them the agreed conditional arrangement was being revoked without any consultation.
On 23 June 2023, a bailiff evicted the tenants, and they were required to leave all their belongings as they had no time to arrange storage or to find somewhere to move their property to.
On 25 June 2023, when the tenants went back to the house to pick up two animals they have left behind, they found trespass notices with their name on all over the premises. They were left in no uncertain terms that they were not permitted to enter the premises. They did not know how to access their belongings when they had been trespassed.
The property manager claims she tried to contact the tenants by text on 1 July 2023 to request a time for the tenants to collect their property. Ms Craven’s mobile number had been changed and so she never received this text. The landlord stated it then waited three weeks before disposing of the property in a skip bin. The tenants gave evidence the skip bin was at the premises on 6 July 2023 and was already being loaded when the tenants went to the property to pick up a lemon tree. The property manager could not confirm when the bin was ordered, but it was picked up and paid for on 12 July 2023 and contained all the rubbish and valuable property that belonged to the tenant, for example outdoor furniture, washing machine and dryer, fridge, cat carry cage, storage cabinet and the like. 4655570 4
Section 62 of the RTA confirms: (1) Where, on the termination of the tenancy, the tenant leaves on the premises foodstuffs or other perishable goods, the landlord may, immediately after taking possession of the premises, dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit; and (2) If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3) If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are stored securely and must deal with the other goods either— (a) in accordance with section 62A; or (b) by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B.
Section 62A of the RTA confirms: (1) The landlord may deal with the goods to which section 62(3) applies, other than personal documents belonging to the tenant, by making all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods; (2) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord may immediately dispose of those goods in any way the landlord thinks fit. (3) If the assessment under subsection (1) indicates that any of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them, the landlord must secure those goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days from the date on which the landlord first took possession of those goods; (4) If, before the landlord disposes of the goods under subsection (5), the tenant claims the goods and any personal documents belonging to the tenant or claims either the goods or the documents,- (a) the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of the goods; and (b) the landlord must release to the tenant any goods and personal documents claimed by the tenant, subject to payment of any costs required under paragraph (a); and (c) the tenant must give the landlord a receipt for any goods and personal documents released to the tenant. (5) If, after the period of 35 days specified in subsection (3), the goods or any personal documents belonging to the tenant remain unclaimed, the landlord must— 4655570 5 (a) continue to secure those goods and personal documents in safe storage to await any claims by the tenant under subsection (4); or (b) do the following: (i) take any personal documents belonging to the tenant to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them from a Police employee; and (ii) sell the other goods by public auction or by private contract at a reasonable market price. (6) If the landlord has sold the goods under subsection (5)(b)(ii), the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for an order specifying the amount (if any) owing to the landlord out of the proceeds of sale.
The property manager confirmed that: (a) She tried to contact the tenants on 1 July 2023 but did not use any other form of communication, such as email, to ensure the tenants had received the text when they did not respond. The tenants stated they did not make contact as they thought they had been trespassed (due to the trespass notices posted all over the premises) and were not permitted to enter the premises under any circumstances; (b) not all the goods disposed of were perishable or actual rubbish, (c) the landlord made no effort at all to assess the market value of any of the property the tenants left in the premises before the property was placed into the skip bin, nor to assess the cost to store and transport any items that may have been saleable, nor did it ascertain whether any of the goods had a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them.
Without having undertaken this assessment, the landlord did not have the legal right to dispose of the tenant’s property in any way it thought fit.
In defence of the landlord’s rubbish removal claims, the tenants gave evidence some of the items had a saleable value of a similar value to the rubbish removal and skip bin costs. Photographic evidence provided to the Tribunal showed there were several items of value that could have been stored or sold to offset the rent arrears owed to the landlord or to offset the cost of removing rubbish left behind. As such, it is my finding that the landlord is in breach of ss62 and 62A of the RTA, the costs to the tenants of the loss of their property offsets the costs sought by the landlord to remove this property as refuse and the tenants successfully refuted liability for the costs of rubbish removal sought by the landlord.
In addition, s49 RTA confirms the landlord must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the tenants’ breach of the tenancy agreement. It did not. 4655570 6
For the reasons outlined above, the landlord’s claims for a skip bin and rubbish removal are declined. 4655570 7

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 tenants accepted they caused damage to some windows during their tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants did not disproved liability for the damage.
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. 4655570 8 Filing Fee
Because Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Minhua Chen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655570 — Cleanliness at 275 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655570 — Cleanliness at 275 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794

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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions