What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4705889 about?

The tribunal order states: This Order amends that made on 21 November 2023 to include an amount for

How much money was awarded in case 4705889?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,564.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4705889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4705889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9672142-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4705889 about?

The tribunal order states: This Order amends that made on 21 November 2023 to include an amount for

How much money was awarded in case 4705889?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,564.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4705889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4705889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9672142-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Parkland Crescent, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4705889 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4705889 — net $1,204.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$1,564.00	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Repairs: carpet	$400.00	Repairs: carpet
Light bulbs/batteries	$550.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Laundry repairs	$30.00	Laundry repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,204.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,204.44

Order

This Order amends that made on 21 November 2023 to include an amount for the laundry repairs awarded but omitted from the table below in the original order.
The Tribunal orders suppression of [Tenant 1’s] name and identifying details.
Jayden Hodder must pay Watson Real Estate Limited $1204.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
[Tenant 1] has no liability for the amounts awarded to the landlord in this Order.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Watson Real Estate Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal$1,564.00 Cleaning$800.00 Repairs: carpet$400.00 Light bulbs/batteries Laundry repairs $550.00 $30.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,364.44 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,204.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
One of the tenant’s, [Tenant 1], attended the hearing by telephone. The other tenant, Jayden Hodder, did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Liability of tenants
The landlord produced evidence that the tenants ended up as the only tenants of the premises. She advised that there were other people living at the premises but they did not sign any documentation that would have transferred the tenancy or the bond into their names.
As a response to this, Jayden Hodder, gave notice to the landlord that the tenancy would end the tenancy on 31 August 2023.
The landlord acknowledged that [Tenant 1] left the tenancy in early 2021 and that the landlord had consented to this. The landlord agreed that [Tenant 1] was not therefore liable for any of the costs which it was seeking.
[Tenant 1] has no liability in relation to the landlord’s claims. Only Jayden Hodder is responsible under the tenancy agreement for amounts awarded under this Order.
[Tenant 1] explained that he and his co-tenants signed a change of tenancy form and a bond transfer form. The landlord’s records indicate that they were not completed.
Where a landlord consents to one tenant being released from a tenancy, it is necessary for a change of tenancy form and a change of tenant form for the Bond Centre to be completed. The Bond Centre does not refund the bond to a single tenant who is leaving a tenancy. It is usual for the incoming tenant to pay their share of the bond to the outgoing tenant.
[Tenant 1] explained that he never received his share of the bond. As discussed at the hearing, this is not a matter for the Tenancy Tribunal. If the tenants at the time [Tenant 1] left the tenancy or the incoming tenant at that time dispute any liability to refund a share of the bond to [Tenant 1], then this is a dispute for resolution through the Disputes Tribunal. This is because his claim is for money owed which is in dispute, not for refund of the bond.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord allowed the tenant five extra days after the end of the tenancy, free of rent, to clear out the premises and leave them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant did his best but failed to do so.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs, including heat lamps in the bathroom.
I am satisfied that the amounts ordered are fair and reasonable based on the landlord’s photographic and oral evidence.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A pot plant was placed on carpet and watered. This caused a large area of carpet to be damaged beyond repair. This is intentional damage because a tenant continued with behaviour knowing that the damage was inevitable. The tenant attempted to repair it but the photographic evidence is that it was not repaired in a good and tradesperson like manner. b. A washing machine in the laundry was allowed to leak so that the water damaged cabinetry and the cork flooring. This is careless damage and the landlord advised that a successful insurance claim was made and that the excess is $550.00. c. A vent disappeared from the built-in microwave. This is probably fair wear and tear and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
In relation to items 21 a. and b. the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In relation to the carpet, 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.
The landlord was not certain of the age of the carpet but estimated that it was at least eight years old. On this basis, it was at the end of its useful life. It was however still serviceable and would not have required replacement, but for the actions of the tenants. I have awarded a modest sum to recognise this.
Because Watson Real Estate Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4705889 — net $1,204.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$1,564.00	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning
Repairs: carpet	$400.00	Repairs: carpet
Light bulbs/batteries	$550.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Laundry repairs	$30.00	Laundry repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,204.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,204.44

Order

This Order amends that made on 21 November 2023 to include an amount for the laundry repairs awarded but omitted from the table below in the original order.
The Tribunal orders suppression of [Tenant 1’s] name and identifying details.
Jayden Hodder must pay Watson Real Estate Limited $1204.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
[Tenant 1] has no liability for the amounts awarded to the landlord in this Order.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Watson Real Estate Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal$1,564.00 Cleaning$800.00 Repairs: carpet$400.00 Light bulbs/batteries Laundry repairs $550.00 $30.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,364.44 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,204.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
One of the tenant’s, [Tenant 1], attended the hearing by telephone. The other tenant, Jayden Hodder, did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Liability of tenants
The landlord produced evidence that the tenants ended up as the only tenants of the premises. She advised that there were other people living at the premises but they did not sign any documentation that would have transferred the tenancy or the bond into their names.
As a response to this, Jayden Hodder, gave notice to the landlord that the tenancy would end the tenancy on 31 August 2023.
The landlord acknowledged that [Tenant 1] left the tenancy in early 2021 and that the landlord had consented to this. The landlord agreed that [Tenant 1] was not therefore liable for any of the costs which it was seeking.
[Tenant 1] has no liability in relation to the landlord’s claims. Only Jayden Hodder is responsible under the tenancy agreement for amounts awarded under this Order.
[Tenant 1] explained that he and his co-tenants signed a change of tenancy form and a bond transfer form. The landlord’s records indicate that they were not completed.
Where a landlord consents to one tenant being released from a tenancy, it is necessary for a change of tenancy form and a change of tenant form for the Bond Centre to be completed. The Bond Centre does not refund the bond to a single tenant who is leaving a tenancy. It is usual for the incoming tenant to pay their share of the bond to the outgoing tenant.
[Tenant 1] explained that he never received his share of the bond. As discussed at the hearing, this is not a matter for the Tenancy Tribunal. If the tenants at the time [Tenant 1] left the tenancy or the incoming tenant at that time dispute any liability to refund a share of the bond to [Tenant 1], then this is a dispute for resolution through the Disputes Tribunal. This is because his claim is for money owed which is in dispute, not for refund of the bond.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord allowed the tenant five extra days after the end of the tenancy, free of rent, to clear out the premises and leave them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant did his best but failed to do so.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs, including heat lamps in the bathroom.
I am satisfied that the amounts ordered are fair and reasonable based on the landlord’s photographic and oral evidence.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A pot plant was placed on carpet and watered. This caused a large area of carpet to be damaged beyond repair. This is intentional damage because a tenant continued with behaviour knowing that the damage was inevitable. The tenant attempted to repair it but the photographic evidence is that it was not repaired in a good and tradesperson like manner. b. A washing machine in the laundry was allowed to leak so that the water damaged cabinetry and the cork flooring. This is careless damage and the landlord advised that a successful insurance claim was made and that the excess is $550.00. c. A vent disappeared from the built-in microwave. This is probably fair wear and tear and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
In relation to items 21 a. and b. the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In relation to the carpet, 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.
The landlord was not certain of the age of the carpet but estimated that it was at least eight years old. On this basis, it was at the end of its useful life. It was however still serviceable and would not have required replacement, but for the actions of the tenants. I have awarded a modest sum to recognise this.
Because Watson Real Estate Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4705889 — Property damage at 15 Parkland Crescent, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4705889 — Property damage at 15 Parkland Crescent, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410

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

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

Frequently asked questions