What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685609 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the money order made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2023.

How much money was awarded in case 4685609?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Keypad: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,465.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Warrant Of Possession: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685609?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10109019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685609 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the money order made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2023.

How much money was awarded in case 4685609?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Keypad: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,465.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Warrant Of Possession: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685609?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10109019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4685609 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685609 — net $10,106.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 August 2023	$6,465.71	Rent arrears to 13 August 2023
Wall damage	$4,000.00	Wall damage
Carpet damage	$500.00	Carpet damage
Keypad	$300.00	Keypad
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$600.00	Rubbish removal
Warrant of possession	$200.00	Warrant of possession
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,106.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,106.15

Order

This order replaces the money order made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2023.
Michelle Tangi Greenland must pay [The landlord/s] $10,106.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s and her agent’s names and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

This was the second hearing of this application, and it followed the Tribunal’s directions order made on 3 November 2023. [The property manager] attended the hearing for [The property management company] with [The landlord/s]. Ms Greenland also attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
This tenancy ended on 7 August 2023 when the tenant failed to make a payment due under the Tribunal’s conditional termination order made on 24 July. The landlord says that she obtained possession of the premises on 17 August 2023, when the court bailiff executed a warrant of possession. The tenant says that she vacated the premises earlier than that, around 10 August, and that the landlord was aware of that and so could have taken possession then. In any case, the landlord claims rent arrears to 13 August and the parties agreed that there were rent arrears in the sum of $6465.71 at that date and that it remains unpaid. I have therefore awarded that sum. Background
This tenancy began in September 2022 for a one-year fixed term and ended in August 2023.
The landlord bought the premises in 2009 and she and her family lived in it until 2017. Other family members then occupied it until 2019 after which it was rented. The house was built in 1980.
The previous tenancy was professionally managed, but the landlord managed this tenancy herself until 1 May 2023 when [The property management company] took over its management.
The landlord accepted that there were some maintenance issues with the premises at the start of the tenancy and she intended addressing them in due course. The tenant said that she intended filing her own application relating to the condition of the premises during the tenancy, but she has not yet done so.
The tenant said that the landlord told her at the beginning of the tenancy that there would be some renovation of the premises during the tenancy including the installation of a new kitchen and bathroom.
On 21 April 2023, [The property management company] sent the tenant a message introducing themselves and stating that the tenancy would not be renewed.
On 1 May, [The property management company] provided a reference for the tenant which included the following statement, “The property is due for extensive renovations, refurbishment, repairs upon current tenancy expiry, which is on 17/09/23, tenants have been notified accordingly.”
The landlord said that by May, there had been tenant damage to the premises, and she had decided that given the extent of the damage, she would be better to renovate the premises entirely. In other words, without the tenant damage, she would not have renovated.
Since the tenancy ended, the landlord has completely renovated the premises including installing new bathrooms and a kitchen and recarpeting and repainting throughout.
The tenant said that the landlord intended to carry out that work all along and so she should not be held liable for the cost of the any of the work despite her acceptance that she caused some damage to the premises during the tenancy. Relevant Law
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Where appropriate the Tribunal 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant. Claims Walls
There was extensive damage to the walls during the tenancy. Photographs showed numerous areas that were damaged by gouging, holes, scuffing and drawing. A significant proportion of the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord produced an estimate from [property maintenance company] for $11,700 (plus GST) for “plastering wall and ceiling on kitchen, bathroom, stairs all bedrooms.” I queried that estimate at the previous hearing because there is no company of that name listed on the Companies Register. [The property manager] explained that it is the trading name for a handy man that the landlord has employed in the past.
That is not a satisfactory explanation, and it calls into question the credibility of the business and its estimate. In any case I do not regard the estimate as reasonable for the remedial work that was necessary to the damage caused during the tenancy.
Another issue here is whether the landlord intended renovating in any event. If that was the landlord’s intention, the damage was not the cause of the work and the landlord cannot recover the cost of the work.
By renovation in the context of this case, I am referring to painting. To the extent that work was needed to repair damage, that would be recoverable from the tenant because it would not have been necessary but for the tenant’s carelessness.
[The property management company] referred to the proposed renovation in the reference they provided for the tenant on 1 May, but that does not prove that the landlord intended painting throughout the premises and replacing the carpet. There was reference previously to installing a new kitchen and bathroom.
My approach is to make an assessment of the cost of repairing the wall damage and award that. The other important factor here is that the decorations of the premises appear to be largely original and given that the house was built in 1980 there would need to be a substantial adjustment for betterment. My finding is that the landlord is entitled to a modest sum for painting to acknowledge the likelihood that the painting was accelerated to some extent by the damage during the tenancy.
For the damage an award of $3,000 is reasonable. As a contribution towards the painting an award of $1,000 is reasonable. I have therefore awarded $4,000 for wall damage. Carpet
I find that the carpet in the downstairs bedroom needed to be replaced due to staining and odour damage that predated the tenancy and so no award can be made for that.
The damage to the carpet in the bedroom upstairs was intentional and I do not accept the tenant’s explanation for causing it. The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of replacing the carpet in that room.
The rest of the carpet suffered staining during the tenancy although there was already some staining when the tenancy began. The landlord did not attempt to clean the carpet and [The property manager] said that it would not have been possible to remove the stains. She might be correct, but until the attempt is made, one can’t be sure.
I must also consider the age of the carpet. [The landlord/s] said that apart from the lounge and stairway carpet it was newly fitted shortly before she bought the premises. That would make 14 years old by the end of the tenancy. The photographs show that it was in reasonably good condition at the beginning of the tenancy and should have had some life left in it.
My finding is therefore that it is reasonable to award $500 for carpet cleaning and stain removal and $500 as a contribution towards the cost of replacing the damaged carpet. Alarm
The tenant cut the wires to the keypad of the alarm system in the premises. She said that it kept falling off the wall and, on one occasion, she stood on it. She said that it was not operable in any case.
The landlord said that the alarm system was not in use because she had lost the code for it. She produced an estimate for replacing it in the sum of $900. It states that the electronics for the new keypad also had to be replaced because the original keypad was now obsolete.
Although the alarm system was not in use there was no evidence that it was unusable. But it was an older system and so that must be taken into consideration. Therefore, an award of $300 is reasonable compensation. Cleaning
The landlord said that she did not clean the premises because she intended renovating. Therefore, there is no award for cleaning. Rubbish
The tenant accepted that she left rubbish at the premises although she disputed the extent of it. I accept that there were some tyres there at the start of the tenancy, but the evidence proves that the tenant added to them. On any view, the tenant left a substantial quantity of rubbish at the premises.
The landlord and her husband disposed of the rubbish themselves over two days. She did not produce evidence of the dump fees. Based on my assessment of the quantity of rubbish left by the tenant I find that an award of $600, to cover the landlord and her husband’s time and the dump fees is reasonable. Warrant of Possession
The tenant did not return the keys of the premises. She said that she had lost them. She said that she vacated the premises well before the bailiff’s appointment on 17 August. I note that the landlord has claimed rent to 13 August.
Not living in the premises is not the same as delivering up possession of the premises to the landlord. There is no hard evidence that the tenant gave up possession the premises to the landlord before 13 August and I find that the landlord is entitled to the court fee for the warrant of possession in the sum of $200. I have therefore awarded it in this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee
The landlord has had significant success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4685609 — net $10,106.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 August 2023	$6,465.71	Rent arrears to 13 August 2023
Wall damage	$4,000.00	Wall damage
Carpet damage	$500.00	Carpet damage
Keypad	$300.00	Keypad
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$600.00	Rubbish removal
Warrant of possession	$200.00	Warrant of possession
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,106.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,106.15

Order

This order replaces the money order made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2023.
Michelle Tangi Greenland must pay [The landlord/s] $10,106.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s and her agent’s names and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

This was the second hearing of this application, and it followed the Tribunal’s directions order made on 3 November 2023. [The property manager] attended the hearing for [The property management company] with [The landlord/s]. Ms Greenland also attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
This tenancy ended on 7 August 2023 when the tenant failed to make a payment due under the Tribunal’s conditional termination order made on 24 July. The landlord says that she obtained possession of the premises on 17 August 2023, when the court bailiff executed a warrant of possession. The tenant says that she vacated the premises earlier than that, around 10 August, and that the landlord was aware of that and so could have taken possession then. In any case, the landlord claims rent arrears to 13 August and the parties agreed that there were rent arrears in the sum of $6465.71 at that date and that it remains unpaid. I have therefore awarded that sum. Background
This tenancy began in September 2022 for a one-year fixed term and ended in August 2023.
The landlord bought the premises in 2009 and she and her family lived in it until 2017. Other family members then occupied it until 2019 after which it was rented. The house was built in 1980.
The previous tenancy was professionally managed, but the landlord managed this tenancy herself until 1 May 2023 when [The property management company] took over its management.
The landlord accepted that there were some maintenance issues with the premises at the start of the tenancy and she intended addressing them in due course. The tenant said that she intended filing her own application relating to the condition of the premises during the tenancy, but she has not yet done so.
The tenant said that the landlord told her at the beginning of the tenancy that there would be some renovation of the premises during the tenancy including the installation of a new kitchen and bathroom.
On 21 April 2023, [The property management company] sent the tenant a message introducing themselves and stating that the tenancy would not be renewed.
On 1 May, [The property management company] provided a reference for the tenant which included the following statement, “The property is due for extensive renovations, refurbishment, repairs upon current tenancy expiry, which is on 17/09/23, tenants have been notified accordingly.”
The landlord said that by May, there had been tenant damage to the premises, and she had decided that given the extent of the damage, she would be better to renovate the premises entirely. In other words, without the tenant damage, she would not have renovated.
Since the tenancy ended, the landlord has completely renovated the premises including installing new bathrooms and a kitchen and recarpeting and repainting throughout.
The tenant said that the landlord intended to carry out that work all along and so she should not be held liable for the cost of the any of the work despite her acceptance that she caused some damage to the premises during the tenancy. Relevant Law
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Where appropriate the Tribunal 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant. Claims Walls
There was extensive damage to the walls during the tenancy. Photographs showed numerous areas that were damaged by gouging, holes, scuffing and drawing. A significant proportion of the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord produced an estimate from [property maintenance company] for $11,700 (plus GST) for “plastering wall and ceiling on kitchen, bathroom, stairs all bedrooms.” I queried that estimate at the previous hearing because there is no company of that name listed on the Companies Register. [The property manager] explained that it is the trading name for a handy man that the landlord has employed in the past.
That is not a satisfactory explanation, and it calls into question the credibility of the business and its estimate. In any case I do not regard the estimate as reasonable for the remedial work that was necessary to the damage caused during the tenancy.
Another issue here is whether the landlord intended renovating in any event. If that was the landlord’s intention, the damage was not the cause of the work and the landlord cannot recover the cost of the work.
By renovation in the context of this case, I am referring to painting. To the extent that work was needed to repair damage, that would be recoverable from the tenant because it would not have been necessary but for the tenant’s carelessness.
[The property management company] referred to the proposed renovation in the reference they provided for the tenant on 1 May, but that does not prove that the landlord intended painting throughout the premises and replacing the carpet. There was reference previously to installing a new kitchen and bathroom.
My approach is to make an assessment of the cost of repairing the wall damage and award that. The other important factor here is that the decorations of the premises appear to be largely original and given that the house was built in 1980 there would need to be a substantial adjustment for betterment. My finding is that the landlord is entitled to a modest sum for painting to acknowledge the likelihood that the painting was accelerated to some extent by the damage during the tenancy.
For the damage an award of $3,000 is reasonable. As a contribution towards the painting an award of $1,000 is reasonable. I have therefore awarded $4,000 for wall damage. Carpet
I find that the carpet in the downstairs bedroom needed to be replaced due to staining and odour damage that predated the tenancy and so no award can be made for that.
The damage to the carpet in the bedroom upstairs was intentional and I do not accept the tenant’s explanation for causing it. The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of replacing the carpet in that room.
The rest of the carpet suffered staining during the tenancy although there was already some staining when the tenancy began. The landlord did not attempt to clean the carpet and [The property manager] said that it would not have been possible to remove the stains. She might be correct, but until the attempt is made, one can’t be sure.
I must also consider the age of the carpet. [The landlord/s] said that apart from the lounge and stairway carpet it was newly fitted shortly before she bought the premises. That would make 14 years old by the end of the tenancy. The photographs show that it was in reasonably good condition at the beginning of the tenancy and should have had some life left in it.
My finding is therefore that it is reasonable to award $500 for carpet cleaning and stain removal and $500 as a contribution towards the cost of replacing the damaged carpet. Alarm
The tenant cut the wires to the keypad of the alarm system in the premises. She said that it kept falling off the wall and, on one occasion, she stood on it. She said that it was not operable in any case.
The landlord said that the alarm system was not in use because she had lost the code for it. She produced an estimate for replacing it in the sum of $900. It states that the electronics for the new keypad also had to be replaced because the original keypad was now obsolete.
Although the alarm system was not in use there was no evidence that it was unusable. But it was an older system and so that must be taken into consideration. Therefore, an award of $300 is reasonable compensation. Cleaning
The landlord said that she did not clean the premises because she intended renovating. Therefore, there is no award for cleaning. Rubbish
The tenant accepted that she left rubbish at the premises although she disputed the extent of it. I accept that there were some tyres there at the start of the tenancy, but the evidence proves that the tenant added to them. On any view, the tenant left a substantial quantity of rubbish at the premises.
The landlord and her husband disposed of the rubbish themselves over two days. She did not produce evidence of the dump fees. Based on my assessment of the quantity of rubbish left by the tenant I find that an award of $600, to cover the landlord and her husband’s time and the dump fees is reasonable. Warrant of Possession
The tenant did not return the keys of the premises. She said that she had lost them. She said that she vacated the premises well before the bailiff’s appointment on 17 August. I note that the landlord has claimed rent to 13 August.
Not living in the premises is not the same as delivering up possession of the premises to the landlord. There is no hard evidence that the tenant gave up possession the premises to the landlord before 13 August and I find that the landlord is entitled to the court fee for the warrant of possession in the sum of $200. I have therefore awarded it in this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee
The landlord has had significant success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685609 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685609 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions