What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695532?

The tribunal order states: Queenie Baker must pay Client First Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4695532?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,712.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695532?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10076244-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4695532?

The tribunal order states: Queenie Baker must pay Client First Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4695532?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,712.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4695532?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4695532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10076244-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4695532 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695532 — net $4,853.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal (balance of exterior clean up	$120.00	Rubbish removal (balance of exterior clean up
General repairs & maintenance work	$4,712.70	General repairs & maintenance work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,853.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,853.14

The hearing was held on 15 February 2024. The agent for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I am satisfied there has been adequate service of the hearing notice and proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

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

The hearing was briefly adjourned for the landlord to provide a breakdown of the invoice from Dream Home Builders Limited presented for repairs. The Tribunal received the breakdown from the landlord on 22 February 2024.

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.

I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the landlord that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is undisputed.

The landlord relied on photographic evidence and an invoice from Affordable Rubbish Removal. The photographs show a significant amount of rubbish left inside and outside the property.

The amount ordered is 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.

I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the landlord that there was extensive damage throughout the property which was caused during the tenancy including damage to the doors and door frames, holes in the walls, damage to the external weatherboard, broken windows and ranchslider glass, damaged curtains, carpet left with faeces and dog puke, shower glass needed to be re-aligned, damaged boundary fence and front driveway gate, broken wall TV attachment, damaged shelving (in the laundry, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom 1), missing doors . The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord relied on photographic evidence and an invoice from Dream Home Builders Limited.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account 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. Given the property was newly decorated at the start and the tenancy was fairly short term, I do not consider depreciation applies.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4695532 — net $4,853.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal (balance of exterior clean up	$120.00	Rubbish removal (balance of exterior clean up
General repairs & maintenance work	$4,712.70	General repairs & maintenance work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,853.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,853.14

Order

Queenie Baker must pay Client First Property Management Limited As Agent For Krisal Property Ltd $4,853.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The hearing was held on 15 February 2024. The agent for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I am satisfied there has been adequate service of the hearing notice and proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for the landlord to provide a breakdown of the invoice from Dream Home Builders Limited presented for repairs. The Tribunal received the breakdown from the landlord on 22 February 2024.

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.
I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the landlord that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence is undisputed.
The landlord relied on photographic evidence and an invoice from Affordable Rubbish Removal. The photographs show a significant amount of rubbish left inside and outside the property.
The amount ordered is 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.
I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the landlord that there was extensive damage throughout the property which was caused during the tenancy including damage to the doors and door frames, holes in the walls, damage to the external weatherboard, broken windows and ranchslider glass, damaged curtains, carpet left with faeces and dog puke, shower glass needed to be re-aligned, damaged boundary fence and front driveway gate, broken wall TV attachment, damaged shelving (in the laundry, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom 1), missing doors . The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord relied on photographic evidence and an invoice from Dream Home Builders Limited.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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. Given the property was newly decorated at the start and the tenancy was fairly short term, I do not consider depreciation applies.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695532 — Property damage at 32 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4695532 — Property damage at 32 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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