What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4692198?

The tribunal order states: Canning Jnr Nathan-Morrison and Tayla Hughes must pay Invercargill Property

How much money was awarded in case 4692198?

Cleaning: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,547.24 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692198?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9687843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4692198?

The tribunal order states: Canning Jnr Nathan-Morrison and Tayla Hughes must pay Invercargill Property

How much money was awarded in case 4692198?

Cleaning: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,547.24 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692198?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9687843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

685 Queens Drive, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4692198 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692198 — net $498.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,547.24	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet Cleaning	$391.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Bin Hire	$280.00	Rubbish removal: Bin Hire
Cleaning: Cleaning, rubbish removal and garden tidy	$460.00	Cleaning: Cleaning, rubbish removal and garden tidy
Net award	$498.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$498.68

Order

Canning Jnr Nathan-Morrison and Tayla Hughes must pay Invercargill Property Management Limited $498.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5454125-004) to Invercargill Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants.
At 9:16am today the tribunal received notification from one of the tenants that he was unable to attend the hearing. The email advised that he was in Ashburton and asked if the matter could be adjourned.
I refused the adjournment out of fairness to the landlord. The tenants have had plenty of notice in respect of todays’ hearing. Without a proper basis for an adjournment I was not prepared to further delay the landlord’s application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I was advised during the hearing that the property was initially managed by a different property management company. The file was then transferred to Invercargill Property Management Limited who despite their best efforts were unable to obtain ‘entry evidence’ in support of this application.
The landlord has been significantly disadvantaged due to an absence of evidence of the state of the property when the tenants moved in. There are several claims by the landlord which are not supported by the evidence available. In the absence of evidence confirming the state of the property at the start of the tenancy means regrettably the landlord’s claim for damage compensation must fail.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for payment of these arrears.

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. There is evidence provided by the landlord which confirms that the tenants did not leave the premises clean and tidy and did not remove rubbish. I have also sighted invoices provided by the landlord in support of these claims.
The landlord says that the carpet was stained and had to be professionally cleaned. The landlord further stated during the hearing that the tenants accepted the carpet stains. There was also an invoice provided in support of this claim.
These amounts claimed by the landlord are allowed on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s claim for light bulbs and double plug replacement is dismissed as I cannot be satisfied of the condition of these items at the start of the tenancy.

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 says that the tenants damaged a number of items within the house. This included damage to a ranch slider, internal doors, a wardrobe sliding door, kitchen drawers and a toilet seat. I acknowledge the exit photographs provided by the landlord in support of these claims however these claims are difficult in the absence of entry photographs.
As noted above it is vital that damage claims are supported by evidence confirming the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. This is especially so with older properties such as this one. Without this evidence it is extremely difficult to determine whether such damage was intentional or fair wear and tear. A tenant could also rightly argue that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.
The claims for damage are dismissed for the reasons provided.
Because Invercargill Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692198 — net $498.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,547.24	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet Cleaning	$391.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Bin Hire	$280.00	Rubbish removal: Bin Hire
Cleaning: Cleaning, rubbish removal and garden tidy	$460.00	Cleaning: Cleaning, rubbish removal and garden tidy
Net award	$498.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$498.68

Order

Canning Jnr Nathan-Morrison and Tayla Hughes must pay Invercargill Property Management Limited $498.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5454125-004) to Invercargill Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants.
At 9:16am today the tribunal received notification from one of the tenants that he was unable to attend the hearing. The email advised that he was in Ashburton and asked if the matter could be adjourned.
I refused the adjournment out of fairness to the landlord. The tenants have had plenty of notice in respect of todays’ hearing. Without a proper basis for an adjournment I was not prepared to further delay the landlord’s application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I was advised during the hearing that the property was initially managed by a different property management company. The file was then transferred to Invercargill Property Management Limited who despite their best efforts were unable to obtain ‘entry evidence’ in support of this application.
The landlord has been significantly disadvantaged due to an absence of evidence of the state of the property when the tenants moved in. There are several claims by the landlord which are not supported by the evidence available. In the absence of evidence confirming the state of the property at the start of the tenancy means regrettably the landlord’s claim for damage compensation must fail.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for payment of these arrears.

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. There is evidence provided by the landlord which confirms that the tenants did not leave the premises clean and tidy and did not remove rubbish. I have also sighted invoices provided by the landlord in support of these claims.
The landlord says that the carpet was stained and had to be professionally cleaned. The landlord further stated during the hearing that the tenants accepted the carpet stains. There was also an invoice provided in support of this claim.
These amounts claimed by the landlord are allowed on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s claim for light bulbs and double plug replacement is dismissed as I cannot be satisfied of the condition of these items at the start of the tenancy.

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 says that the tenants damaged a number of items within the house. This included damage to a ranch slider, internal doors, a wardrobe sliding door, kitchen drawers and a toilet seat. I acknowledge the exit photographs provided by the landlord in support of these claims however these claims are difficult in the absence of entry photographs.
As noted above it is vital that damage claims are supported by evidence confirming the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. This is especially so with older properties such as this one. Without this evidence it is extremely difficult to determine whether such damage was intentional or fair wear and tear. A tenant could also rightly argue that the damage was there at the start of the tenancy.
The claims for damage are dismissed for the reasons provided.
Because Invercargill Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692198 — Rent arrears at 685 Queens Drive, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692198 — Rent arrears at 685 Queens Drive, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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