What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677628?

The tribunal order states: Grant Selby must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $1,225.60

How much money was awarded in case 4677628?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $687.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677628?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9681181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677628?

The tribunal order states: Grant Selby must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $1,225.60

How much money was awarded in case 4677628?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $687.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677628?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9681181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5G, 11A Central Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677628 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677628 — net $1,225.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Toilet repairs	$687.66	Toilet repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,225.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,225.60

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant Mr Selby left the hearing early after being warned twice to stop using profanity in the hearing. Mr Selby then removed himself from the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. An invoice was provided for the cleaning and the outgoing inspection report confirmed the property required full cleaning.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: toilet bowl damage.

The Landlord submitted the Tenant claimed his visitor damaged the toilet bowl by dropping a beer bottle on it. The Tenant agreed to pay for the damage in instalments at the time this was reported. These instalments were never paid by the Tenant. An invoice dated 16 March 2022 was provided for the toilet repair. There was no ingoing inspection report or email correspondence between the parties confirming the Tenant damaged the toilet. The outgoing inspection report photos indicated the toilet was repaired and in good condition at the end of the tenancy.

In considering the evidence, although there is no reference to the toilet condition in the initial chattel inspection report, the invoice provided by the Landlord confirmed the toilet was broken and replaced. I find it more likely than from the invoice provided and outgoing inspection, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The Landlord has requested the refund of the bond however enquiries with the Bond Centre indicate this has been refunded so an Order has not been made. The Landlord shall contact the Tribunal if this is not the case and this Order will be amended.

As the Landlord has been successful in their claim, the Tenant shall pay the filing fee. The Landlord has not requested name suppression so an Order has not been made in this instance.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677628 — net $1,225.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Toilet repairs	$687.66	Toilet repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,225.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,225.60

Order

Grant Selby must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $1,225.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant Mr Selby left the hearing early after being warned twice to stop using profanity in the hearing. Mr Selby then removed himself from the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. An invoice was provided for the cleaning and the outgoing inspection report confirmed the property required full cleaning.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: toilet bowl damage.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant claimed his visitor damaged the toilet bowl by dropping a beer bottle on it. The Tenant agreed to pay for the damage in instalments at the time this was reported. These instalments were never paid by the Tenant. An invoice dated 16 March 2022 was provided for the toilet repair. There was no ingoing inspection report or email correspondence between the parties confirming the Tenant damaged the toilet. The outgoing inspection report photos indicated the toilet was repaired and in good condition at the end of the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, although there is no reference to the toilet condition in the initial chattel inspection report, the invoice provided by the Landlord confirmed the toilet was broken and replaced. I find it more likely than from the invoice provided and outgoing inspection, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord has requested the refund of the bond however enquiries with the Bond Centre indicate this has been refunded so an Order has not been made. The Landlord shall contact the Tribunal if this is not the case and this Order will be amended.
As the Landlord has been successful in their claim, the Tenant shall pay the filing fee. The Landlord has not requested name suppression so an Order has not been made in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677628 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5G, 11A Central Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677628 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5G, 11A Central Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland

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