What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4696951?

The tribunal order states: Brett Fulford must pay J R Property Management Limited as Agent for VJ & Tl

How much money was awarded in case 4696951?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4612671 D…: $920.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Security Latches (2: $39.52 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $875.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $31.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4696951?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4696951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10141515-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4696951?

The tribunal order states: Brett Fulford must pay J R Property Management Limited as Agent for VJ & Tl

How much money was awarded in case 4696951?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4612671 D…: $920.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Broken Security Latches (2: $39.52 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $875.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $31.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4696951?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4696951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10141515-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Ramsey Crescent, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4696951 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4696951 — net $3,027.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4612671 dated 17/04/2023	$920.44	Previous order application 4612671 dated 17/04/2023
Rubbish removal: materials	$31.43	Rubbish removal: materials
Rubbish removal: labour/ trailer hire/ dump fees	$875.50	Rubbish removal: labour/ trailer hire/ dump fees
Lock/key replacement: replace garage door lock	$270.00	Lock/key replacement: replace garage door lock
Lock/key replacement: repair and replace ranch slider lock and deadbolt	$402.50	Lock/key replacement: repair and replace ranch slider lock and deadbolt
Replace broken security latches (2	$39.52	Replace broken security latches (2
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$180.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,027.33

Brett Fulford must pay J R Property Management Limited as Agent for VJ & Tl Dempsey Investments Ltd $3,027.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The amount payable by the tenant to the landlord under the Order dated

4.23 (application 4612671) is included in this Order which supersedes that previous Order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

The tenancy was ended on 17 July 2023 by Order of the tribunal of the same date (application 4612671).

On 27 September 2023 the landlord brought this application seeking compensation, following the end of the tenancy.

As the application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the matter was allocated a case conference by teleconference which was held on 31 January 2024. On that date the application was adjourned for further service, as the service requirements of s.91A had not been met.

Notice of today's hearing was served on the tenant by e-mail to the e-mail address for service specified by him in the tenancy agreement. Service was also affected by SMS message, again to the number given by the tenant in the tenancy agreement.

Those service contacts details were specified by the tenant in October 2021 when the agreement was signed. The landlord has provided evidence today, which satisfies me that the tenant continued using that e-mail address and phone number, up to the end of the tenancy.

In my view it is fair to infer that the tenant is likely to have continued using those means of communication after the tenancy had ended.

The landlord’s application involves claims for compensation for cleaning and damage costs after the tenancy ended. Those are claims which are largely capable of a proof by documentary evidence. In my view it is not unduly prejudicial to the tenant to proceed to hear those claims without further service being required (s.91B(2)(c).

The landlord’s application also claimed compensation for the result of methamphetamine contamination of the premises. I would not have been prepared to consider those claims today, but they have in any event been withdrawn by the landlord.

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 property manager’s evidence is that on 17 July 2023, the date the termination Order was made, she took the Order to the premises and left it for the tenant. On 18 July the property manager returned to the premises. The tenant had not vacated. There were two young women occupying the premises.

The property manager had concerns about what appeared to be a weapon at the premises and her entry into the premises was assisted by the police. The property manager sent a message to the tenant asking him to remove his belongings. That was not replied to.

On 19 July the property manager again messaged the tenant to give him the opportunity to collect his belongings before they were removed from the house and into the garage so that cleaning and repair work on the house could begin.

On 20 July the property manager messaged the tenant again to let him know that his belongings were in the garage, the garage had been left unsecured in the meantime so he could come and collect his belongings if he wished to. The next day that it appeared that the tenant had visited the garage to take some belongings. The remainder of the tenant’s belongings were then disposed of.

The landlord’s assessment was that the items left by the tenant had no market value (see s.62A) except for a pounamu collection which the property manager has kept in storage for the tenant to collect along with some personal photographs. The property manager has given an assurance that she will again try to contact the tenant to let him know that those belongings can be collected.

There are two entry locks to the premises. The property manager locked both when leaving. Her belief is that the tenant had a key to one lock and the occupants had a key to the other lock so neither could access the premises when both locks were secured. On returning to the premises the next day the property manager found that the door had been forced open.

Photographs provided by the property manager from the inspection done when the tenancy ended show that the tenant had not removed his belongings and no cleaning of the premises had been undertaken.

The tenant did not return the keys.

Invoices provided by the landlord show that a locksmith was required to repair the ranch slider door and replace the locks as well as replace the handle and lock in the garage which had been boarded up from the inside. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the locksmith’s charges, as proved by those invoices.

The amount of the material removed from the premises is indicated by the contractor’s invoice which notes 3 separate charges for dump fees for $51.00, $137.12 and $77.38. The rubbish removal charges, as proved by that invoice are high, but are reasonable given the quantity of material removed.

The charges for cleaning and for carpet cleaning are reasonable and are proved by invoices provided by the landlord. After an initial clean, deep cleansing was undertaken to remediate the methamphetamine contamination found. The landlord now only seeks recovery of the initial cleaning costs.

The evidence provided by the property manager persuades me that the tenant was responsible for broken security latches on the windows and the landlord is entitled to the cost of replacement, which is proved by the invoice provided.

Because the landlord has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4696951 — net $3,027.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4612671 dated 17/04/2023	$920.44	Previous order application 4612671 dated 17/04/2023
Rubbish removal: materials	$31.43	Rubbish removal: materials
Rubbish removal: labour/ trailer hire/ dump fees	$875.50	Rubbish removal: labour/ trailer hire/ dump fees
Lock/key replacement: replace garage door lock	$270.00	Lock/key replacement: replace garage door lock
Lock/key replacement: repair and replace ranch slider lock and deadbolt	$402.50	Lock/key replacement: repair and replace ranch slider lock and deadbolt
Replace broken security latches (2	$39.52	Replace broken security latches (2
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$180.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,027.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,027.33

Order

Brett Fulford must pay J R Property Management Limited as Agent for VJ & Tl Dempsey Investments Ltd $3,027.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The amount payable by the tenant to the landlord under the Order dated
4.23 (application 4612671) is included in this Order which supersedes that previous Order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The tenancy was ended on 17 July 2023 by Order of the tribunal of the same date (application 4612671).
On 27 September 2023 the landlord brought this application seeking compensation, following the end of the tenancy.
As the application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the matter was allocated a case conference by teleconference which was held on 31 January 2024. On that date the application was adjourned for further service, as the service requirements of s.91A had not been met.
Notice of today's hearing was served on the tenant by e-mail to the e-mail address for service specified by him in the tenancy agreement. Service was also affected by SMS message, again to the number given by the tenant in the tenancy agreement.
Those service contacts details were specified by the tenant in October 2021 when the agreement was signed. The landlord has provided evidence today, which satisfies me that the tenant continued using that e-mail address and phone number, up to the end of the tenancy.
In my view it is fair to infer that the tenant is likely to have continued using those means of communication after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord’s application involves claims for compensation for cleaning and damage costs after the tenancy ended. Those are claims which are largely capable of a proof by documentary evidence. In my view it is not unduly prejudicial to the tenant to proceed to hear those claims without further service being required (s.91B(2)(c).
The landlord’s application also claimed compensation for the result of methamphetamine contamination of the premises. I would not have been prepared to consider those claims today, but they have in any event been withdrawn by the landlord.

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 property manager’s evidence is that on 17 July 2023, the date the termination Order was made, she took the Order to the premises and left it for the tenant. On 18 July the property manager returned to the premises. The tenant had not vacated. There were two young women occupying the premises.
The property manager had concerns about what appeared to be a weapon at the premises and her entry into the premises was assisted by the police. The property manager sent a message to the tenant asking him to remove his belongings. That was not replied to.
On 19 July the property manager again messaged the tenant to give him the opportunity to collect his belongings before they were removed from the house and into the garage so that cleaning and repair work on the house could begin.
On 20 July the property manager messaged the tenant again to let him know that his belongings were in the garage, the garage had been left unsecured in the meantime so he could come and collect his belongings if he wished to. The next day that it appeared that the tenant had visited the garage to take some belongings. The remainder of the tenant’s belongings were then disposed of.
The landlord’s assessment was that the items left by the tenant had no market value (see s.62A) except for a pounamu collection which the property manager has kept in storage for the tenant to collect along with some personal photographs. The property manager has given an assurance that she will again try to contact the tenant to let him know that those belongings can be collected.
There are two entry locks to the premises. The property manager locked both when leaving. Her belief is that the tenant had a key to one lock and the occupants had a key to the other lock so neither could access the premises when both locks were secured. On returning to the premises the next day the property manager found that the door had been forced open.
Photographs provided by the property manager from the inspection done when the tenancy ended show that the tenant had not removed his belongings and no cleaning of the premises had been undertaken.
The tenant did not return the keys.
Invoices provided by the landlord show that a locksmith was required to repair the ranch slider door and replace the locks as well as replace the handle and lock in the garage which had been boarded up from the inside. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the locksmith’s charges, as proved by those invoices.
The amount of the material removed from the premises is indicated by the contractor’s invoice which notes 3 separate charges for dump fees for $51.00, $137.12 and $77.38. The rubbish removal charges, as proved by that invoice are high, but are reasonable given the quantity of material removed.
The charges for cleaning and for carpet cleaning are reasonable and are proved by invoices provided by the landlord. After an initial clean, deep cleansing was undertaken to remediate the methamphetamine contamination found. The landlord now only seeks recovery of the initial cleaning costs.
The evidence provided by the property manager persuades me that the tenant was responsible for broken security latches on the windows and the landlord is entitled to the cost of replacement, which is proved by the invoice provided.
Because the landlord has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4696951 — Property damage at 19 Ramsey Crescent, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4696951 — Property damage at 19 Ramsey Crescent, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions