How much money was awarded in case 4659230?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Door - Hollow Core Door: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Travel Contribution: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659230?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9648209-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4659230?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Door - Hollow Core Door: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboard: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Walls: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Travel Contribution: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659230?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9648209-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4659230 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4659230 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4659230 — net $745.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Replace carpet	$100.00	Repairs: Replace carpet
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Skip	$400.00	Rubbish removal: Skip
Rubbish removal: Labour	$220.00	Rubbish removal: Labour
Repairs: Door - hollow core door	$250.00	Repairs: Door - hollow core door
Repairs: Kitchen walls	$400.00	Repairs: Kitchen walls
Carpet Cleaning: Windowsill	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning: Windowsill
Repairs: Kitchen cupboard	$189.75	Repairs: Kitchen cupboard
Repairs: Travel contribution	$25.00	Repairs: Travel contribution
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46592302 Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46592302 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$745.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$745.19

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Daniel Rodney Curzey must pay [The landlord/s] $745.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The landlord’s application for compensation for failing to return keys, curtain/blind replacement, a detached baseboard, handles and letterbox is dismissed.

The landlord withdraws the claim relating to the oven, light, fan and guttering.

The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for damage done and failing to seek consent for changes is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which was the second hearing after the first hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord further opportunity to gather evidence.

I am satisfied the tenant has been satisfactorily served and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for damage done/failing to seek consent for changes.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant left a significant amount of items and rubbish at the premises.

Due to the number of items left I accept it was reasonable to use a skip to dispose of them. I have awarded $400 for the skip (rather than $500 as per the invoice) because this is the amount the landlord put on the application that was served. The amount sought cannot be increased at the hearing.

The landlord claims $300 for cleaning. I am satisfied that the photographs provided support the effort required. This claim is awarded in full.

The landlord claims $120 for moving items into the garage (2 hours) and a further $240 (4 hours) plus travel for subsequently moving the items from the garage into a skip once the Tribunal had made an order allowing for their disposal.

I award a total of $220 in relation to the labour costs associated with moving the items from the house to the garage and then putting them into the skip. I find that the time spent moving the items from the garage to the skip is disproportionate to both the amount of goods left in the property and because the goods were already gathered and collated in the garage (and the award includes an amount for that).

The landlord states that the tenant failed to return all keys supplied at the start of the tenancy. There is no evidence of the keys supplied at the start. There is insufficient evidence. The claim for failing to return all keys is dismissed.

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 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. This means in calculating the sum awarded the Tribunal should take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan as appropriate.

The landlord makes the claims for damage as set out below. Carpet – lounge, bedroom and sunroom

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant removed carpet in the lounge, the sunroom and in part of the bedroom.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider this to be intentional damage.

The landlord claims $2,875 for the replacement. However, I must take into account depreciation.

The landlord suggested the carpet was around 30 years old and I agree that this does appear to be a good estimate. The carpet in the sunroom was recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report as being average at the start of the tenancy although photographs show staining. The other carpets also were recorded as average but also recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report as being worn/very worn and having stains. The photographs show old carpet in a very worn state of repair.

The Tribunal uses a variety of sources for assessing depreciation, including IRD guidelines. The useful lifespan of carpet in a residential tenancy is eight years (according to the IRD's General Depreciation Determination DEP80). The carpet here is much older than this and it was not in good condition at the start of the tenancy. I therefore award nominal damages of $100. Curtains / blinds

The landlord says that the tenant damaged curtains in the lounge and bedroom and damaged Roman blinds in the sunroom. The landlord says that a blind in the bedroom is missing.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the curtain in the bedroom was damaged. There is no probative evidence showing the damage. I am satisfied that the blind has been removed in this room. I consider this to be intentional. However, I decline to award compensation because the ingoing property report records the blind as being damaged so that it does not have a cord to pull it up and down. Therefore, it was already broken before the tenant moved in.

The living room curtains have lining that is the type that forms part of the curtain itself. It has started to peel away. The curtains appear to be older in style. I am not satisfied that the lining coming off the back of the living room curtains is anything other than fair wear and tear. In any event, had I found otherwise, given that the curtains appear to be older in style, and there was no satisfactory evidence as to age any award would have been significantly reduced to nominal damages (if not extinguished altogether) by depreciation.

The Roman Blinds are in a high use area. One of them would need to be opened and closed frequently if the ranch slider was to be used. Roman blinds are relatively short life-span chattels that require periodic replacement due to normal wear and tear. In the absence of information about the age of the blinds and given the location of the blinds I am not satisfied that this damage is anything other than fair wear and tear.

The claim for the replacement of the blinds and curtains is dismissed. Oven, light, fan and guttering

The landlord withdrew these claims. Baseboards

I accept that one of the baseboards outside the property has come loose during the tenancy so that it has partially dropped and hanging from its place.

I consider this to be fair wear and tear rather than damage that the tenant is responsible for. There is no evidence, for example, that the board had been ripped off. The board was simply reattached.

This claim is dismissed. Handles

The landlord claimed for three missing handles. The landlord was unable to prove that three handles were missing or which handles they all were.

While one handle was identified as missing, the invoice provided for this part of the claim set out the cost of repairing all three handles together (a single sum). The Tribunal cannot guess how much of the overall sum sought in relation to the repair of three handles relates to the handle identified so that compensation can accurately be awarded.

This claim is therefore dismissed. Letterbox

I accept that the top of the letterbox was missing at the end of the tenancy. Given the condition of the letter box at the start of the tenancy shown in the photograph provided I am not satisfied this damage is anything other than fair wear and tear. In any event, the age of the letterbox, which the landlord suggested was 10 years old, would have resulted in no compensation being awarded in any event due to depreciation.

This claim is dismissed. Kitchen wall – Three holes

The landlord has proven that three holes were made in the kitchen wall during the course of the tenancy – one in a wallpapered area and two in a painted area. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the number of holes I consider this to be intentional damage.

The landlord says that the holes were filled and just the one wall of the kitchen where the holes were was painted. The landlord seeks $623.33 ($542 +GST) for materials and labour.

Without further breakdown of the work and materials involved this sum appears to be excessive for patching the holes and painting a wall of this size. I award $400.00 which I consider to be reasonable.

I have not depreciated the amount awarded as I consider the landlord has not been placed in a better position by this patching. The whole room was not painted – only one wall. Kitchen windowsill

The landlord has proven that the kitchen windowsill was damaged during the course of the tenancy so that it required repainting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider this most likely to be intentional damage given the extent of the paint that has been removed.

The landlord seeks $175 plus GST. Without further breakdown of the work and materials involved this sum appears to be excessive. I have awarded $120 for this work. I am satisfied that the sill was painted just prior to the tenancy commencing in 2022 so I have not depreciated the sum sought. Door

The landlord has proven that a hollow core door was damaged during the tenancy. The door has four holes in it. The landlord claims $431 plus GST for repairing the door including painting it. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider this most likely to be intentional damage given the nature of the damage.

There was no evidence in relation to when the door was last painted. However, photographs show the paintwork to be in reasonable condition.

Without further breakdown of the work and materials involved the sum claimed appears to be excessive for patching and painting a door. I have award $250 for this work. This takes into account the fact that landlord will have had a benefit by having the door repainted. Kitchen cupboard

The landlord has proven that a kitchen cupboard was damaged during the course of the tenancy. This is an older style kitchen which had a pull-out chopping board as part of the kitchen’s design. I accept that this has gone missing during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Considering the lack of care taken by the tenant in the remainder of the property I consider this to be intentional damage.

The landlord has needed to have a new board and frame created at the cost of $165 plus GST ($189.75). I accept that this would not have been a straightforward task. The board is part of the kitchen as without it the top drawer is left open and exposed and there is a large gap between that drawer and the kitchen bench. I do not consider the landlord has received a benefit and so have not depreciated this work. The amount ordered is proven. Travel time for tradesperson

The work undertaken in respect of the handles, baseboards, letterbox, guttering, door, kitchen wall, window sill and kitchen cupboard included travel time of the tradesperson who did that work at $75 plus GST. The landlord has not been successful in all of these claims. However, given the claims that have been successful I consider an award of $25 towards travel to be reasonable and I have awarded this. Exemplary damages

The landlord has applied for exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant has damaged the property maliciously and that in relation to the carpet they should have asked the landlord before it was removed to get consent.

As explained at the hearing the RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order those exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal is able to consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

I do not consider that the grounds relied upon by the landlord gives rise to a jurisdictional basis upon which to award exemplary damages.

The RTA does not provide for exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant damaged the property or where the tenant undertakes renovation without consent.

As discussed at the hearing there is a provision relating to tenants making requests for minor changes and I have considered this carefully (although the landlord says this was a major change). However, the RTA does not provide that is an unlawful act (and therefore a landlord may seek exemplary damages) for a tenant to go ahead and make a change to the property without consent.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

I award name suppression to the landlord because it was requested and they have been substantially successful.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4659230 — net $745.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Replace carpet	$100.00	Repairs: Replace carpet
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Skip	$400.00	Rubbish removal: Skip
Rubbish removal: Labour	$220.00	Rubbish removal: Labour
Repairs: Door - hollow core door	$250.00	Repairs: Door - hollow core door
Repairs: Kitchen walls	$400.00	Repairs: Kitchen walls
Carpet Cleaning: Windowsill	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning: Windowsill
Repairs: Kitchen cupboard	$189.75	Repairs: Kitchen cupboard
Repairs: Travel contribution	$25.00	Repairs: Travel contribution
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46592302 Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46592302 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$745.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$745.19