What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4702869?

The tribunal order states: Madhi Arabzadeh Samani must pay B & C Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4702869?

Cleaning: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4638429 D…: $3,422.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $614.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,319.00 awarded to landlord; Replace broken glass in garage windo…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $406.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4702869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4702869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10128148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4702869?

The tribunal order states: Madhi Arabzadeh Samani must pay B & C Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4702869?

Cleaning: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4638429 D…: $3,422.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $614.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,319.00 awarded to landlord; Replace broken glass in garage windo…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $406.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4702869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4702869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10128148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4702869 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4702869 — net $6,497.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4638429 dated 22/08/2023	$3,422.43	Previous order application 4638429 dated 22/08/2023
Cleaning (Full house	$370.00	Cleaning (Full house
Rubbish removal	$406.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: (Dog damage to windowsills, doors, walls and curtain repair and wash, repair bent widow stays	$1,319.00	Repairs: (Dog damage to windowsills, doors, walls and curtain repair and wash, repair bent widow stays
Repairs: Replace broken glass in garage window	$345.00	Repairs: Replace broken glass in garage window
Lock/key replacement	$614.64	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,497.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,497.51

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

On 22 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears of 4,590.00, water rates of $71.99, refund of the bond and the filing fee of $20.44. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing from this order is $3,422.43.

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

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.

The tenant did not return the keys.

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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:

The curtains were damaged and needed to be repaired, washed and steamed to get creases out;

The tenant had a dog at the premises that caused damage to the windowsills, walls and doors;

The window stays had been bent by the tenants hanging washing off them; and

There was a broken window in the garage.

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 considered 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, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because B & C Property Management Limited As Agent For Rui & Chong Liu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4702869 — net $6,497.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4638429 dated 22/08/2023	$3,422.43	Previous order application 4638429 dated 22/08/2023
Cleaning (Full house	$370.00	Cleaning (Full house
Rubbish removal	$406.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: (Dog damage to windowsills, doors, walls and curtain repair and wash, repair bent widow stays	$1,319.00	Repairs: (Dog damage to windowsills, doors, walls and curtain repair and wash, repair bent widow stays
Repairs: Replace broken glass in garage window	$345.00	Repairs: Replace broken glass in garage window
Lock/key replacement	$614.64	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,497.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,497.51

Order

Madhi Arabzadeh Samani must pay B & C Property Management Limited As Agent For Rui & Chong Liu $6,497.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 August 2023 under application 4638429.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
On 22 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears of 4,590.00, water rates of $71.99, refund of the bond and the filing fee of $20.44. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing from this order is $3,422.43.
The landlord has applied for compensation for vacated damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The curtains were damaged and needed to be repaired, washed and steamed to get creases out;
The tenant had a dog at the premises that caused damage to the windowsills, walls and doors;
The window stays had been bent by the tenants hanging washing off them; and
There was a broken window in the garage.
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 considered 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, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because B & C Property Management Limited As Agent For Rui & Chong Liu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4702869 — Property damage at 1A John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4702869 — Property damage at 1A John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

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