What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4671815?

The tribunal order states: Hineamaru Davies-Lyndon and Bruce Haenga must pay Stephanie Ira Tibble

How much money was awarded in case 4671815?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4671815?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4671815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9755637-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4671815?

The tribunal order states: Hineamaru Davies-Lyndon and Bruce Haenga must pay Stephanie Ira Tibble

How much money was awarded in case 4671815?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4671815?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4671815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9755637-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Crown Hill, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4671815 — Property damage

Order

Hineamaru Davies-Lyndon and Bruce Haenga must pay Stephanie Ira Tibble and Paul Tibble $3,199.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,590.00 (3771677-002) to Stephanie Ira Tibble and Paul Tibble immediately.

Reasons

The landlord represented by Stephanie Tibble attended the hearing by teleconference. There was no appearance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Originally, the landlord sought termination for rent arrears only. However, I am satisfied that since lodging the application the tenancy ended, and the landlord advised both the Tribunal and the tenants of further claims for compensation. Therefore, I accept that the tenants were on notice of the claims, and I dealt with them at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early on 19 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at this date.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $506 but was unable to provide photos of the premises to justify the claim. I accept that one photo shows that the oven was not left reasonably clean and tidy. I award $50 for cleaning the oven only.
The tenant did not return all the keys and the landlord had to change the locks.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is 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. In this case the landlord has insurance with an excess of $500 per event.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: There were multiple holes, scrapes and marks on many of the walls in all three bedrooms, the lounge, and the upstairs bathroom. In some areas, the tenants had attempted to patch repair some of the doors, but the work was not to a reasonable standard. The property inspection report completed prior to the tenancy records some pre-existing scuffs, marks and holes in these areas but the landlord says that the photos produced in evidence are of additional marks at the end of the tenancy. I accept on the evidence that there was additional damage caused during the tenancy which is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the painted walls and doors at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord gave evidence that the lounge had not been painted since they purchased the property in 2010. She says the bedrooms were painted in approximately 2016/2017 and the upstairs bathroom was painted in 2021.Based on current depreciation guidelines and given the condition of the rooms before the start of the tenancy, I consider the landlord could reasonably expect the painted surfaces in this property to last 10 years. For the bedrooms last painted in 2016/2017, I have reduced the costs claimed by 70%. For the costs to remediate the bathroom door (last painted in 2021), I have reduced the claim by 20%. The paintwork in the lounge is more than 13 years old and should be fully depreciated. However. I award $100 (approximately 15% of the claim) for plastering the holes on one wall which occurred during the tenancy. I consider these awards are reasonable given the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy and to take depreciation into account.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4671815 — Property damage at 1 Crown Hill, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

Tenancy Tribunal case 4671815 — Property damage at 1 Crown Hill, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?