What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4691452?

The tribunal order states: Merepeka Materoa Marlene Tepuia Matangi and Anthony Ashby must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4691452?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $897.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.53 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $153.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,637.84 awarded to landlord; Replace Sink: $202.00 awarded to landlord; Replanting: $278.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691452?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9604449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4691452?

The tribunal order states: Merepeka Materoa Marlene Tepuia Matangi and Anthony Ashby must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4691452?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $897.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.53 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $153.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,637.84 awarded to landlord; Replace Sink: $202.00 awarded to landlord; Replanting: $278.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691452?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9604449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Woodward Street, Woodbourne, Blenheim 7206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4691452 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691452 — net $4,173.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$153.57	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$213.53	Window repairs
Repairs to wallpaper: Walls (depreciated based on 7-year economic life	$3,637.84	Repairs to wallpaper: Walls (depreciated based on 7-year economic life
Replace sink	$202.00	Replace sink
Replanting	$278.98	Replanting
Cleaning: and rubbish removal/minor repairs (20 hours labour	$897.10	Cleaning: and rubbish removal/minor repairs (20 hours labour
Net award	$4,173.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,173.46

Order

Merepeka Materoa Marlene Tepuia Matangi and Anthony Ashby must pay Summit Property Management Blenheim Limited As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force $4,173.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 (5771923-007) to Summit Property Management Blenheim Limited As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

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 landlord produced an invoice for $1229.60 as well as a range of before and after photos. This invoice was for cleaning, lawns and gardens, removal of waste. Some minor repairs were included, as were the replacement of three light bulbs, and the replacement of a window latch. One task, the reattaching of cabinetry doors, is considered fair wear.
The invoice accounted for 29.5 hours of labour. I expressed at the hearing some initial doubts that such effort was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Having reviewed the evidence further I do not find the total hours can be attributed to the tenants’ failures and determine 20 hours (at the same hourly rate) proven and appropriate. The amount awarded has been adjusted to $897.10 to reflect this.
The carpet required cleaning and stain removal. An invoice for $350.00 was provided along with supporting photos. This is awarded in full.
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.
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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wallpaper.
The premises was repapered some three years earlier in one type throughout. The tenants accepted damaging one wall in a bedroom but were unable to match the wallpaper and it remained damaged at the end of the tenancy. There was evidence of further damage in most rooms, these were extensive drawings that could not be removed, multiple holes from an activity such as darts with poor aiming, and at last two holes that require repairs behind the wallpaper.
There was a lengthy discussion with the landlord regarding the repair strategy given the likely future use of the premises. It is appropriate to apply depreciation and I have adopted a useful life as seven years. While the landlord stated the wallpaper was in great condition at the start of this tenancy, I note the ongoing condition report highlights a number of identifiable issues in several areas of the wallpapered areas at that time. The repapering work is continuing and at this time there is only a quote available. Having reviewed the photos at entry and exit, as well as considering the actual wall damage, I consider the quote is a reasonable amount to establish an award on. The landlord confirmed the repair strategy as indicated in the quote is being used. Based on my adoption of the quote of $6,371.00 to establish the repair cost, and applying depreciation based on seven years and an age of three years (straight-line at 14.3%) I award $3,637.84 as compensation for the tenant liability for the repair and repapering of the premises. Window
A glass section of a door was broken and required replacing. An invoice and photo supported the claim. The claim is awarded in full ($213.53). Plants
There was an established area of plantings at the commencement of the tenancy. This was confirmed by photos from that time, as well as later messaging between the parties as the tenants removed them for their own reasons. They failed to replant the area at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for replanting of $278.98 was produced. The planting effort correlates to the area and prior plantings. The claim is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for the walls as previously explained. 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Blenheim Limited As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691452 — net $4,173.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$153.57	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$213.53	Window repairs
Repairs to wallpaper: Walls (depreciated based on 7-year economic life	$3,637.84	Repairs to wallpaper: Walls (depreciated based on 7-year economic life
Replace sink	$202.00	Replace sink
Replanting	$278.98	Replanting
Cleaning: and rubbish removal/minor repairs (20 hours labour	$897.10	Cleaning: and rubbish removal/minor repairs (20 hours labour
Net award	$4,173.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,173.46

Order

Merepeka Materoa Marlene Tepuia Matangi and Anthony Ashby must pay Summit Property Management Blenheim Limited As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force $4,173.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 (5771923-007) to Summit Property Management Blenheim Limited As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

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 landlord produced an invoice for $1229.60 as well as a range of before and after photos. This invoice was for cleaning, lawns and gardens, removal of waste. Some minor repairs were included, as were the replacement of three light bulbs, and the replacement of a window latch. One task, the reattaching of cabinetry doors, is considered fair wear.
The invoice accounted for 29.5 hours of labour. I expressed at the hearing some initial doubts that such effort was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Having reviewed the evidence further I do not find the total hours can be attributed to the tenants’ failures and determine 20 hours (at the same hourly rate) proven and appropriate. The amount awarded has been adjusted to $897.10 to reflect this.
The carpet required cleaning and stain removal. An invoice for $350.00 was provided along with supporting photos. This is awarded in full.
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.
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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wallpaper.
The premises was repapered some three years earlier in one type throughout. The tenants accepted damaging one wall in a bedroom but were unable to match the wallpaper and it remained damaged at the end of the tenancy. There was evidence of further damage in most rooms, these were extensive drawings that could not be removed, multiple holes from an activity such as darts with poor aiming, and at last two holes that require repairs behind the wallpaper.
There was a lengthy discussion with the landlord regarding the repair strategy given the likely future use of the premises. It is appropriate to apply depreciation and I have adopted a useful life as seven years. While the landlord stated the wallpaper was in great condition at the start of this tenancy, I note the ongoing condition report highlights a number of identifiable issues in several areas of the wallpapered areas at that time. The repapering work is continuing and at this time there is only a quote available. Having reviewed the photos at entry and exit, as well as considering the actual wall damage, I consider the quote is a reasonable amount to establish an award on. The landlord confirmed the repair strategy as indicated in the quote is being used. Based on my adoption of the quote of $6,371.00 to establish the repair cost, and applying depreciation based on seven years and an age of three years (straight-line at 14.3%) I award $3,637.84 as compensation for the tenant liability for the repair and repapering of the premises. Window
A glass section of a door was broken and required replacing. An invoice and photo supported the claim. The claim is awarded in full ($213.53). Plants
There was an established area of plantings at the commencement of the tenancy. This was confirmed by photos from that time, as well as later messaging between the parties as the tenants removed them for their own reasons. They failed to replant the area at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for replanting of $278.98 was produced. The planting effort correlates to the area and prior plantings. The claim is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for the walls as previously explained. 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Blenheim Limited As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691452 — Property damage at 35 Woodward Street, Woodbourne, Blenheim 7206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691452 — Property damage at 35 Woodward Street, Woodbourne, Blenheim 7206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions