What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656650 about?

The tribunal order states: Jason Barry Chapman and Byron Cooper must pay [The landlord/s] $2,999.27

How much money was awarded in case 4656650?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Disposal Of Stored Belongings: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,737.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,071.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,351.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,288.57 awarded to landlord; Roof & Spouting: $777.87 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door: $236.23 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Net Curtain: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Light Shades: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $101.10 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $29.50 awarded to landlord; Storage Cost: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656650?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Lost Rent, Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9672927-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656650 about?

The tribunal order states: Jason Barry Chapman and Byron Cooper must pay [The landlord/s] $2,999.27

How much money was awarded in case 4656650?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Disposal Of Stored Belongings: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,737.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,071.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $63.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,351.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,288.57 awarded to landlord; Roof & Spouting: $777.87 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door: $236.23 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Net Curtain: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Light Shades: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $101.10 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $29.50 awarded to landlord; Storage Cost: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656650?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Lost Rent, Rent arrears, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9672927-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656650 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656650 — net $9,423.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/8/23	$1,288.57	Rent arrears to 31/8/23
Rubbish removal: skip bin hire 9m3	$440.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin hire 9m3
Dog damage repair (builder	$1,071.52	Dog damage repair (builder
Dog damage repair (landlord	$1,000.00	Dog damage repair (landlord
Window repairs: 2 pane replacement	$276.00	Window repairs: 2 pane replacement
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Electricity costs for repairs	$63.80	Electricity costs for repairs
Exemplary damages: unlawful use	$150.00	unlawful use
Lost rent	$1,737.50	Lost rent
Repairs: roof & spouting	$777.87	Repairs: roof & spouting
Rubbish removal: 9 tyre disposal costs	$101.10	Rubbish removal: 9 tyre disposal costs
Replace smoke alarms	$29.50	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: sliding door	$236.23	Repairs: sliding door
Lawns and Garden work: replacing damaged bushes	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work: replacing damaged bushes
Rubbish removal: time	$800.00	Rubbish removal: time
Floor removal	$1,000.00	Floor removal
Floor replacement	$1,351.00	Floor replacement
Replace light shades	$40.00	Replace light shades
Replace furnishings: net curtain	$30.00	Replace furnishings: net curtain
Storage cost	$360.00	Storage cost
Disposal of stored belongings	$350.00	Disposal of stored belongings
Net award	$9,423.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,423.09

Order

Jason Barry Chapman and Byron Cooper must pay [The landlord/s] $2,999.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Jason Barry Chapman and Byron Cooper have until Friday 24 November 2023 at 5pm to collect their remaining items from the landlord.
After 24 November [The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s remaining personal documents to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
After 24 November [The landlord/s] may dispose of the other remaining goods as the landlord sees fit.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by [The landlord’s representative/s]. There was no appearance from the tenants, however as they had been served with the notice of hearing by email and text, pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing went ahead in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in August 2023. The tenancy had only been of a year’s duration, however when the premise was returned to the landlord, it was in an unsanitary state.
I discuss each of the claims separately below with application to the law. Before doing so, however, it is useful if I outline the requirements for proof. In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish their case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must demonstrate that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. All evidence and submissions provided by the parties has been considered in this light to form this decision, even if it has not been expressly mentioned in the decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 August 2023 after the tenants had provided 28 days’ notice. They did vacate earlier but did not return possession of the property to the landlord until the 31 st . The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly, the amount for rent arrears is ordered as sought.

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) RTA.
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
Here the landlord has established that the tenants have not left the premise reasonably clean and tidy, nor had they removed all their belongings when they vacated. In fact, the home was left exceptionally dirty with dog faeces and urine throughout the property, inside and outside the house. A considerable amount of rubbish and belongings were also left scattered through the property.
The property was so dirty that after a visit by the [City Council] Environmental Health Officer (the Officer) on 16 August 2023, the tenants were issued with a Notice to abate Nuisance (the Notice) 1 . The Notice stated that the accumulation of rubbish, dog food and excrement at the property was deemed a nuisance pursuant to section 29 of the Health Act 1956. The tenants were given until 30 August to remedy the situation or they would be fined. They did not do so but the landlord did as soon as they regained possession to the Officer’s satisfaction.
The landlord is a company, the directors of which are [The landlord’s representative/s]. They, with other family members conducted a considerable amount of the work required to reinstate this property to a liveable standard. They have provided detailed time records of their work. When it comes to landlords claiming for their own time, the Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen whilst taking into account that they are not professional workers. In addition, the total amount charged needs to be in proportion with the required statutory standard. 1 Pursuant to the Health Act 1956
Having assessed the evidence, the amounts ordered are considered reasonable and justified. They are slightly less than that claimed by the landlord to account for the business costs usually associated with running a tenancy. Pursuant to section 102 of the RTA, landlords are not entitled to be reimbursed their costs associated with running a tenancy which includes time spent liaising with maintenance people or Tenancy Services or filing a claim with the Tribunal. I found [The landlord’s representative/s] a credible witness and his claims reasonable.
The landlord’s claims for replacing a missing smoke alarm and some destroyed bushes are also accepted as reasonable and proven.

What should the landlord do with the belongings the tenants left behind?

The tenants left a number of belongings at the property when they vacated in breach of section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. They have made no attempt to collect them. Likewise, however the landlord has not specifically directed the tenants to collect the items by a certain time.
Accordingly, I direct that the tenants collect their belongings by this coming Friday. Should they fail to do so, as the value of the goods is below the cost of storing them further, transporting and selling them, the landlord may dispose of the goods 2 . The landlord has established that the majority of the items will likely not be taken by a second-hand shop and therefore they will have to dispose of them. Therefore, I direct compensation for this disposal on the basis that the tenants are unlikely to comply with order 4 given they haven’t in the preceding 12 weeks. If they do comply, this amount is unclaimable by the landlord.
The landlord has stored the belongings for the tenants since they vacated and seek compensation for doing so. They have kept them at their home, and they are taking up 20 square metres of their garage. They seek $600 compensation for this service which equates to a storage fee of $50 per week.
I consider this claim reasonable as they took immediate steps to apply to the Tribunal for a disposal order and kept the storage costs as low as possible by keeping them in their own home. I do not find that $50 per week however is reasonable as the inconvenience was not substantial to [The landlord’s representative/s]. I also note that pursuant to section 62A, the landlord was not legally required to go to such steps. Accordingly, I direct compensation of $360 which equates to $30 per week. 2 See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has established that a considerable amount of damage occurred during the tenancy which was mainly due to the dogs being allowed inside in contravention of the tenancy agreement 3 , and a flood that occurred when the tenants left the sink drain blocked. I discuss each claim separately below. The law
When claiming compensation for damage, 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.
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. Flooring
The landlord has established in evidence that the flooring in the toilet and laundry had been damaged by a flood from the washing machine when the tenants left the sink blocked. They had not told the landlord about the flood, and it was noticed at an inspection. They did replace the vinyl themselves however 3 The tenancy agreement only permitted one dog and that dog was to be outside. There were three large dogs that were ostensibly permitted to roam throughout the home. the floor underneath it was still wet when the landlord regained possession. The vinyl therefore had to be removed, the floorboards dried, and then new vinyl installed. I consider this careless damage as the flood could and should have been avoided by the tenants.
The landlord has established in evidence that the carpet throughout the house was damaged irreparably by the dogs urinating and defecating on them. It was such a health hazard that the landlord immediately had to remove them and dispose of them. I consider this intentional damage given the extent of the damage; it was clearly foreseeable that allowing the dogs to continue to use the carpet as a bathroom would create the damage it has.
The landlord has claimed compensation for having to replace the vinyl and carpet in all rooms other than half the lounge and two single bedrooms. They have reduced the amount it cost them to be reasonable to the tenants although the dogs had defecated in all rooms barring one small bedroom. The landlord’s insurance did not cover this damage as they considered each incident a separate event and in the insurance excess is $2,500 per event.
Section 49 of the RTA requires the innocent party to a breach of the agreement or Act to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. I am satisfied that [The landlord’s representative/s] has done so here. He has removed and disposed of the flooring himself and obtained three different quotes for the replacements.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
This carpet and vinyl were installed prior to [The landlord’s representative/s]’s purchasing the property and [The landlord’s representative/s] expects it to be likely over 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of carpets in a rental property varies from 8-14 years depending on whether the area is a bedroom or living area, and vinyl has a lifespan of 10 years. Accordingly, the flooring here was at the end of its lifespan based on depreciation guidelines. However, I also accept that it was nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 20% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage.
I have also awarded amounts considered reasonable for the landlord’s time in removing and disposing of the damaged flooring. General dog damage
The landlord has established in evidence that there was a lot of damage throughout the property caused by the dogs. Windowsills, skirtings, a seat, a cupboard, doors, and flooring had been scratched and chewed by the dogs. [The landlord’s representative/s] family repaired what they could and had a handyman repair the remainder. Some has not yet been repaired. They claim their reasonable costs in doing so and the handyman’s costs.
I consider this damage intentional, as again, once the dog had scratched or chewed an area on a couple of occasions, allowing it to continue to happen was a virtual certainty as to the ensuing damage. Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for this damage repair. Roof damage
[The landlord’s representative/s] has established in evidence that a corner of the roof and spouting was damaged by the tenants hitting it with their removal truck when they vacated. Mr Cooper has admitted his liability for this in writing. Accordingly, as this is careless damage, the tenants are responsible for the repair costs which are less than the s49B cap. Lamp shades
The landlord has established in evidence that two lampshades got damaged, presumably when the tenants removed their belongings. They seek compensation for having to replace them. They were approximately two years old and have an estimated lifespan of approximately five years. Accordingly, the amount claimed is reduced slightly to account for depreciation as discussed above. Net curtains
The net curtains in one room had been ripped towards the end of the tenancy. During the tenancy other curtains had been ripped by the dogs but replaced by the tenants. The landlord claims compensation for having to replace this curtain. I approve the claim as given the extent of the damage, it appears to have occurred by careless use.
These curtains had well exceeded their expected life span of one to three years. Accordingly, the amount ordered is less than that sought to account for depreciation. Broken windows
[The landlord’s representative/s] has established in evidence that two windows got broken during the tenancy, most likely due to the dogs tapping on the windows from outside. I consider this careless damage as the dogs were not sufficiently controlled, and as such find the tenants liable for the repair costs. Sliding door
[The landlord’s representative/s] has established in evidence that a sliding door has been smashed and had to be replaced. They tried to undertake the repair themselves but could not and so had to purchase a replacement. I consider this careless damage given the force that would have been required to cause the extensive cracking shown in the photos. Accordingly the tenants are liable for the amount ordered in compensation for the repair. Other
The landlord also claims $63.80 in electricity costs and two and a half weeks rent compensation for not being able to re-rent the property. In fact, it took them five weeks to re-tenant the property due to the time frame for the repairs, however they submit that their claim is reasonable.
When awarding damages, the principal is that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
I consider it foreseeable by the tenants that leaving the property in this state would take a considerable amount of time to rectify. They purposely did not allow [The landlord’s representative/s] entry after they had vacated on the 10 th to commence the work until the official end of the tenancy on the 31 st . This has cost the landlord more time and no doubt contributed to the damage as the faeces and urine could soak further and further deteriorate the flooring.
Accordingly, I find these claims reasonable and award them as sought.
Also, because [The landlord/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As an aside, I note that being a landlord is a business which brings with it ancillary time and work. I consider that this decision compensates the landlord where allowed by the RTA and all other ancillary costs claimed but not ordered, are business costs which come along with the business of running a residential tenancy. Did the tenants prevent the landlord’s access to the property?
[The landlord/s] claims the tenants did not allow them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter. He says he notified them on the 17 th that he would enter on the 19 th to attend to the damage that was occurring as a result of the excessive faecal matter left. He did the same on the 19 th for a visit on the 21 st .
Mr Cooper replied saying that they would not allow him access although they had already vacated.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance 4 .
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
[The landlord’s representative/s] was actually entitled to enter the property on the 19 th and/or the 21 st as he did not need the tenants’ consent to do so given he was entering for the purposes of maintenance. 5 Whilst I accept that it was best practice for him not to go against the tenants’ wishes, he was lawfully entitled to enter. Accordingly, I do not find that the tenants prevented his access on the 19th. This claim must be dismissed.

Was the premise used unlawfully?

[The landlord’s representative/s] says they found evidence of drug use and an imitation gun in the ceiling of the home which they reported to Police. He has provided a Police report which states that the Police found a BB gun, 2 Bongs, a set of scales and a sun glass case with remnants of cannabis. They seized the drug paraphernalia but took no other action.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose; see section 40(2)(b) RTA. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use and possess marijuana. Therefore, to use or have marijuana in a tenanted premise is still unlawful according to New Zealand law. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA. 4 See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5 Section 48(2)(d) of the RTA
Having considered the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the tenants have used marijuana in the premise, which is an unlawful use, therefore they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
In taking into account the factors of s109 RTA, I consider the following: i. Because cannabis is a Class C controlled drug the harm from this drug is considered by Parliament to be in the lowest category of moderate risk of harm to the individual or society by its misuse; section 3A MDA. ii. The impact on the landlord was that they had to call the Police which was an intimidating attendance given they came armed because of the presence of the BB gun. iii. There is limited public interest in sanctioning such use and there is no evidence here that the tenants had marijuana intended for supply in their possession, nor was there persuasive evidence of any other type of drug use.
I therefore consider it just to award a modest amount of $150 exemplary damages. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656650 — net $9,423.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/8/23	$1,288.57	Rent arrears to 31/8/23
Rubbish removal: skip bin hire 9m3	$440.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin hire 9m3
Dog damage repair (builder	$1,071.52	Dog damage repair (builder
Dog damage repair (landlord	$1,000.00	Dog damage repair (landlord
Window repairs: 2 pane replacement	$276.00	Window repairs: 2 pane replacement
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Electricity costs for repairs	$63.80	Electricity costs for repairs
Exemplary damages: unlawful use	$150.00	unlawful use
Lost rent	$1,737.50	Lost rent
Repairs: roof & spouting	$777.87	Repairs: roof & spouting
Rubbish removal: 9 tyre disposal costs	$101.10	Rubbish removal: 9 tyre disposal costs
Replace smoke alarms	$29.50	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: sliding door	$236.23	Repairs: sliding door
Lawns and Garden work: replacing damaged bushes	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work: replacing damaged bushes
Rubbish removal: time	$800.00	Rubbish removal: time
Floor removal	$1,000.00	Floor removal
Floor replacement	$1,351.00	Floor replacement
Replace light shades	$40.00	Replace light shades
Replace furnishings: net curtain	$30.00	Replace furnishings: net curtain
Storage cost	$360.00	Storage cost
Disposal of stored belongings	$350.00	Disposal of stored belongings
Net award	$9,423.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,423.09

Order

Jason Barry Chapman and Byron Cooper must pay [The landlord/s] $2,999.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Jason Barry Chapman and Byron Cooper have until Friday 24 November 2023 at 5pm to collect their remaining items from the landlord.
After 24 November [The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s remaining personal documents to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
After 24 November [The landlord/s] may dispose of the other remaining goods as the landlord sees fit.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by [The landlord’s representative/s]. There was no appearance from the tenants, however as they had been served with the notice of hearing by email and text, pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing went ahead in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy in August 2023. The tenancy had only been of a year’s duration, however when the premise was returned to the landlord, it was in an unsanitary state.
I discuss each of the claims separately below with application to the law. Before doing so, however, it is useful if I outline the requirements for proof. In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish their case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must demonstrate that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. All evidence and submissions provided by the parties has been considered in this light to form this decision, even if it has not been expressly mentioned in the decision.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 August 2023 after the tenants had provided 28 days’ notice. They did vacate earlier but did not return possession of the property to the landlord until the 31 st . The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly, the amount for rent arrears is ordered as sought.

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) RTA.
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
Here the landlord has established that the tenants have not left the premise reasonably clean and tidy, nor had they removed all their belongings when they vacated. In fact, the home was left exceptionally dirty with dog faeces and urine throughout the property, inside and outside the house. A considerable amount of rubbish and belongings were also left scattered through the property.
The property was so dirty that after a visit by the [City Council] Environmental Health Officer (the Officer) on 16 August 2023, the tenants were issued with a Notice to abate Nuisance (the Notice) 1 . The Notice stated that the accumulation of rubbish, dog food and excrement at the property was deemed a nuisance pursuant to section 29 of the Health Act 1956. The tenants were given until 30 August to remedy the situation or they would be fined. They did not do so but the landlord did as soon as they regained possession to the Officer’s satisfaction.
The landlord is a company, the directors of which are [The landlord’s representative/s]. They, with other family members conducted a considerable amount of the work required to reinstate this property to a liveable standard. They have provided detailed time records of their work. When it comes to landlords claiming for their own time, the Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen whilst taking into account that they are not professional workers. In addition, the total amount charged needs to be in proportion with the required statutory standard. 1 Pursuant to the Health Act 1956
Having assessed the evidence, the amounts ordered are considered reasonable and justified. They are slightly less than that claimed by the landlord to account for the business costs usually associated with running a tenancy. Pursuant to section 102 of the RTA, landlords are not entitled to be reimbursed their costs associated with running a tenancy which includes time spent liaising with maintenance people or Tenancy Services or filing a claim with the Tribunal. I found [The landlord’s representative/s] a credible witness and his claims reasonable.
The landlord’s claims for replacing a missing smoke alarm and some destroyed bushes are also accepted as reasonable and proven.

What should the landlord do with the belongings the tenants left behind?

The tenants left a number of belongings at the property when they vacated in breach of section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. They have made no attempt to collect them. Likewise, however the landlord has not specifically directed the tenants to collect the items by a certain time.
Accordingly, I direct that the tenants collect their belongings by this coming Friday. Should they fail to do so, as the value of the goods is below the cost of storing them further, transporting and selling them, the landlord may dispose of the goods 2 . The landlord has established that the majority of the items will likely not be taken by a second-hand shop and therefore they will have to dispose of them. Therefore, I direct compensation for this disposal on the basis that the tenants are unlikely to comply with order 4 given they haven’t in the preceding 12 weeks. If they do comply, this amount is unclaimable by the landlord.
The landlord has stored the belongings for the tenants since they vacated and seek compensation for doing so. They have kept them at their home, and they are taking up 20 square metres of their garage. They seek $600 compensation for this service which equates to a storage fee of $50 per week.
I consider this claim reasonable as they took immediate steps to apply to the Tribunal for a disposal order and kept the storage costs as low as possible by keeping them in their own home. I do not find that $50 per week however is reasonable as the inconvenience was not substantial to [The landlord’s representative/s]. I also note that pursuant to section 62A, the landlord was not legally required to go to such steps. Accordingly, I direct compensation of $360 which equates to $30 per week. 2 See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has established that a considerable amount of damage occurred during the tenancy which was mainly due to the dogs being allowed inside in contravention of the tenancy agreement 3 , and a flood that occurred when the tenants left the sink drain blocked. I discuss each claim separately below. The law
When claiming compensation for damage, 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.
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. Flooring
The landlord has established in evidence that the flooring in the toilet and laundry had been damaged by a flood from the washing machine when the tenants left the sink blocked. They had not told the landlord about the flood, and it was noticed at an inspection. They did replace the vinyl themselves however 3 The tenancy agreement only permitted one dog and that dog was to be outside. There were three large dogs that were ostensibly permitted to roam throughout the home. the floor underneath it was still wet when the landlord regained possession. The vinyl therefore had to be removed, the floorboards dried, and then new vinyl installed. I consider this careless damage as the flood could and should have been avoided by the tenants.
The landlord has established in evidence that the carpet throughout the house was damaged irreparably by the dogs urinating and defecating on them. It was such a health hazard that the landlord immediately had to remove them and dispose of them. I consider this intentional damage given the extent of the damage; it was clearly foreseeable that allowing the dogs to continue to use the carpet as a bathroom would create the damage it has.
The landlord has claimed compensation for having to replace the vinyl and carpet in all rooms other than half the lounge and two single bedrooms. They have reduced the amount it cost them to be reasonable to the tenants although the dogs had defecated in all rooms barring one small bedroom. The landlord’s insurance did not cover this damage as they considered each incident a separate event and in the insurance excess is $2,500 per event.
Section 49 of the RTA requires the innocent party to a breach of the agreement or Act to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. I am satisfied that [The landlord’s representative/s] has done so here. He has removed and disposed of the flooring himself and obtained three different quotes for the replacements.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
This carpet and vinyl were installed prior to [The landlord’s representative/s]’s purchasing the property and [The landlord’s representative/s] expects it to be likely over 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of carpets in a rental property varies from 8-14 years depending on whether the area is a bedroom or living area, and vinyl has a lifespan of 10 years. Accordingly, the flooring here was at the end of its lifespan based on depreciation guidelines. However, I also accept that it was nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 20% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage.
I have also awarded amounts considered reasonable for the landlord’s time in removing and disposing of the damaged flooring. General dog damage
The landlord has established in evidence that there was a lot of damage throughout the property caused by the dogs. Windowsills, skirtings, a seat, a cupboard, doors, and flooring had been scratched and chewed by the dogs. [The landlord’s representative/s] family repaired what they could and had a handyman repair the remainder. Some has not yet been repaired. They claim their reasonable costs in doing so and the handyman’s costs.
I consider this damage intentional, as again, once the dog had scratched or chewed an area on a couple of occasions, allowing it to continue to happen was a virtual certainty as to the ensuing damage. Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for this damage repair. Roof damage
[The landlord’s representative/s] has established in evidence that a corner of the roof and spouting was damaged by the tenants hitting it with their removal truck when they vacated. Mr Cooper has admitted his liability for this in writing. Accordingly, as this is careless damage, the tenants are responsible for the repair costs which are less than the s49B cap. Lamp shades
The landlord has established in evidence that two lampshades got damaged, presumably when the tenants removed their belongings. They seek compensation for having to replace them. They were approximately two years old and have an estimated lifespan of approximately five years. Accordingly, the amount claimed is reduced slightly to account for depreciation as discussed above. Net curtains
The net curtains in one room had been ripped towards the end of the tenancy. During the tenancy other curtains had been ripped by the dogs but replaced by the tenants. The landlord claims compensation for having to replace this curtain. I approve the claim as given the extent of the damage, it appears to have occurred by careless use.
These curtains had well exceeded their expected life span of one to three years. Accordingly, the amount ordered is less than that sought to account for depreciation. Broken windows
[The landlord’s representative/s] has established in evidence that two windows got broken during the tenancy, most likely due to the dogs tapping on the windows from outside. I consider this careless damage as the dogs were not sufficiently controlled, and as such find the tenants liable for the repair costs. Sliding door
[The landlord’s representative/s] has established in evidence that a sliding door has been smashed and had to be replaced. They tried to undertake the repair themselves but could not and so had to purchase a replacement. I consider this careless damage given the force that would have been required to cause the extensive cracking shown in the photos. Accordingly the tenants are liable for the amount ordered in compensation for the repair. Other
The landlord also claims $63.80 in electricity costs and two and a half weeks rent compensation for not being able to re-rent the property. In fact, it took them five weeks to re-tenant the property due to the time frame for the repairs, however they submit that their claim is reasonable.
When awarding damages, the principal is that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
I consider it foreseeable by the tenants that leaving the property in this state would take a considerable amount of time to rectify. They purposely did not allow [The landlord’s representative/s] entry after they had vacated on the 10 th to commence the work until the official end of the tenancy on the 31 st . This has cost the landlord more time and no doubt contributed to the damage as the faeces and urine could soak further and further deteriorate the flooring.
Accordingly, I find these claims reasonable and award them as sought.
Also, because [The landlord/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As an aside, I note that being a landlord is a business which brings with it ancillary time and work. I consider that this decision compensates the landlord where allowed by the RTA and all other ancillary costs claimed but not ordered, are business costs which come along with the business of running a residential tenancy. Did the tenants prevent the landlord’s access to the property?
[The landlord/s] claims the tenants did not allow them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter. He says he notified them on the 17 th that he would enter on the 19 th to attend to the damage that was occurring as a result of the excessive faecal matter left. He did the same on the 19 th for a visit on the 21 st .
Mr Cooper replied saying that they would not allow him access although they had already vacated.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance 4 .
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
[The landlord’s representative/s] was actually entitled to enter the property on the 19 th and/or the 21 st as he did not need the tenants’ consent to do so given he was entering for the purposes of maintenance. 5 Whilst I accept that it was best practice for him not to go against the tenants’ wishes, he was lawfully entitled to enter. Accordingly, I do not find that the tenants prevented his access on the 19th. This claim must be dismissed.

Was the premise used unlawfully?

[The landlord’s representative/s] says they found evidence of drug use and an imitation gun in the ceiling of the home which they reported to Police. He has provided a Police report which states that the Police found a BB gun, 2 Bongs, a set of scales and a sun glass case with remnants of cannabis. They seized the drug paraphernalia but took no other action.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose; see section 40(2)(b) RTA. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use and possess marijuana. Therefore, to use or have marijuana in a tenanted premise is still unlawful according to New Zealand law. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA. 4 See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5 Section 48(2)(d) of the RTA
Having considered the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the tenants have used marijuana in the premise, which is an unlawful use, therefore they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
In taking into account the factors of s109 RTA, I consider the following: i. Because cannabis is a Class C controlled drug the harm from this drug is considered by Parliament to be in the lowest category of moderate risk of harm to the individual or society by its misuse; section 3A MDA. ii. The impact on the landlord was that they had to call the Police which was an intimidating attendance given they came armed because of the presence of the BB gun. iii. There is limited public interest in sanctioning such use and there is no evidence here that the tenants had marijuana intended for supply in their possession, nor was there persuasive evidence of any other type of drug use.
I therefore consider it just to award a modest amount of $150 exemplary damages. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656650 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656650 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

What should the landlord do with the belongings the tenants left behind?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premise used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

What should the landlord do with the belongings the tenants left behind?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premise used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions