What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706253 about?

The tribunal order states: Laura Marita Vandenberg, Kaleb Brendan Ericsson must pay Reh Property

How much money was awarded in case 4706253?

Cleaning: $405.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $710.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $286.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,857.14 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $1,156.51 awarded to landlord; Paint On Garage Floor: $1,260.75 awarded to landlord; Walls And Removal Of Further Rubbish: $1,021.67 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: cooktop and lam…: $1,156.51 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and do…: $2,575.82 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,875.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706253?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9792260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706253 about?

The tribunal order states: Laura Marita Vandenberg, Kaleb Brendan Ericsson must pay Reh Property

How much money was awarded in case 4706253?

Cleaning: $405.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $710.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $286.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,857.14 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $1,156.51 awarded to landlord; Paint On Garage Floor: $1,260.75 awarded to landlord; Walls And Removal Of Further Rubbish: $1,021.67 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: cooktop and lam…: $1,156.51 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and do…: $2,575.82 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,875.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706253?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9792260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

609 Rangitikei Line, Cloverlea, RD 5, Palmerston North Tenancy Tribunal Case 4706253 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4706253 — net $11,894.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,857.14	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$710.70	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$405.95	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,875.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$286.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: electrical	$1,156.51	Repairs: electrical
Repairs: carpet	$448.50	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: paint on garage floor	$1,260.75	Repairs: paint on garage floor
Repairs: walls and removal of further rubbish	$1,021.67	Repairs: walls and removal of further rubbish
Replace furnishings: cooktop and lamps	$1,156.51	Replace furnishings: cooktop and lamps
Replace furnishings: curtains and doors	$2,575.82	Replace furnishings: curtains and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,894.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,894.91

Laura Marita Vandenberg, Kaleb Brendan Ericsson must pay Reh Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Robertson Holden $11,894.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 to Reh Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Robertson Holden immediately.

The names of the tenants [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] are suppressed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Melissa O’Donnell and Samuel McKendry. Two tenants, [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] also attended. There was no appearance by Laura Vandenberg or Kaleb Ericsson. [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] did not represent all four tenants.

The landlord did not seek orders against [Tenant C] and [Tenant D], who had moved out of the premises in late April or early May, before any of the issues before the Tribunal arose. The original application to the Tenancy did not name them, but because their names remained on the tenancy agreement, the landlord was advised they needed to name them all in the application. There had been no issues at all with the tenancy while [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] lived there.

[Tenant C] and [Tenant D] had prepared a thorough bundle of documents for the Tribunal, including a timeline and copies of correspondence and texts outlining the changeover.

[Tenant C] and [Tenant D] decided to leave the flat earlier in 2023. In an email of 20 March 2023 to Mr McKendry, [Tenant C] said she wanted give 28 days’ notice. He replied that he did not accept individual tenant notices and that she needed to find an applicant to replace her and then do an application. Mr McKendry explained to the Tribunal that the usual process is to advertise the vacancy, the property manager vets the applicants, and a variation to the tenancy agreement is created.

[Tenant C] and [Tenant D] obtained the variation form and signed it on 2 May along with Korbin, a new tenant. The tenant Laura Vandenberg said that she would pass the forms on to the property manager, Ms O’Donnell the next day when she was attending for an inspection.

After the two moved out things rapidly deteriorated. On 20 June 2023 Ms O’Donnell issued a notice for rent arrears. [Tenant C] replied that she and [Tenant D] no longer lived there. On 12 July 2023 a second rent arrears notice was issued and [Tenant D] replied. Ms O’Donnell told them that there was no paperwork to show that they had vacated the property. On the same day, the Police executed a search warrant. Eventually the parties agreed that [Tenant C] should give notice to terminate the tenancy agreement, and so the entire tenancy ended on 23 August 2023 as a result of her 28-day notice.

Despite [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] remaining on the tenancy agreement and not following the correct procedure which would have allowed the landlord to screen applicants, the landlord made it clear that they did not wish any orders to be made against these two tenants and agreed to name suppression.

I add that it was commendable that the tenants attended the hearing and had thoroughly prepared their information, but also trust that they have learned a salutary lesson from this experience about their responsibilities and liability as joint tenants.

Accordingly, [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] were excused from the hearing and it proceeded in their absence. The claims

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears

The tenancy ended on 23 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,857.14. Cleaning and damage

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 remaining tenants did not return the keys. The landlord submitted an invoice for $286.00.

The landlord submitted photographs and a video showing that the property had been “trashed”. The damage was extensive and was intentional. There was no attempt to clean or remove rubbish. The stove top was missing. There were abandoned cars. There was paint all over the garage floor. Lamps were damaged, doors, curtains missing and there were holes in walls.

There were marks on the carpet, which the landlord tried to remove with cleaning, but some of them were burn marks. These have been replaced with carpet squares.

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.

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 damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the remaining tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord submitted invoices for all of the matters shown in the table on the first page of this decision.

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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I therefore reduced the amount claimed for the curtains exclusive of GST from $1,306.78 to $1,000. This makes the total ordered for replacement for curtains and doors $2,575.82.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Reh Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Robertson Holden has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4706253 — net $11,894.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,857.14	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$710.70	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$405.95	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,875.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$286.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: electrical	$1,156.51	Repairs: electrical
Repairs: carpet	$448.50	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: paint on garage floor	$1,260.75	Repairs: paint on garage floor
Repairs: walls and removal of further rubbish	$1,021.67	Repairs: walls and removal of further rubbish
Replace furnishings: cooktop and lamps	$1,156.51	Replace furnishings: cooktop and lamps
Replace furnishings: curtains and doors	$2,575.82	Replace furnishings: curtains and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,894.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,894.91

Order

Laura Marita Vandenberg, Kaleb Brendan Ericsson must pay Reh Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Robertson Holden $11,894.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 to Reh Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Robertson Holden immediately.
The names of the tenants [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] are suppressed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Melissa O’Donnell and Samuel McKendry. Two tenants, [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] also attended. There was no appearance by Laura Vandenberg or Kaleb Ericsson. [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] did not represent all four tenants.
The landlord did not seek orders against [Tenant C] and [Tenant D], who had moved out of the premises in late April or early May, before any of the issues before the Tribunal arose. The original application to the Tenancy did not name them, but because their names remained on the tenancy agreement, the landlord was advised they needed to name them all in the application. There had been no issues at all with the tenancy while [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] lived there.
[Tenant C] and [Tenant D] had prepared a thorough bundle of documents for the Tribunal, including a timeline and copies of correspondence and texts outlining the changeover.
[Tenant C] and [Tenant D] decided to leave the flat earlier in 2023. In an email of 20 March 2023 to Mr McKendry, [Tenant C] said she wanted give 28 days’ notice. He replied that he did not accept individual tenant notices and that she needed to find an applicant to replace her and then do an application. Mr McKendry explained to the Tribunal that the usual process is to advertise the vacancy, the property manager vets the applicants, and a variation to the tenancy agreement is created.
[Tenant C] and [Tenant D] obtained the variation form and signed it on 2 May along with Korbin, a new tenant. The tenant Laura Vandenberg said that she would pass the forms on to the property manager, Ms O’Donnell the next day when she was attending for an inspection.
After the two moved out things rapidly deteriorated. On 20 June 2023 Ms O’Donnell issued a notice for rent arrears. [Tenant C] replied that she and [Tenant D] no longer lived there. On 12 July 2023 a second rent arrears notice was issued and [Tenant D] replied. Ms O’Donnell told them that there was no paperwork to show that they had vacated the property. On the same day, the Police executed a search warrant. Eventually the parties agreed that [Tenant C] should give notice to terminate the tenancy agreement, and so the entire tenancy ended on 23 August 2023 as a result of her 28-day notice.
Despite [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] remaining on the tenancy agreement and not following the correct procedure which would have allowed the landlord to screen applicants, the landlord made it clear that they did not wish any orders to be made against these two tenants and agreed to name suppression.
I add that it was commendable that the tenants attended the hearing and had thoroughly prepared their information, but also trust that they have learned a salutary lesson from this experience about their responsibilities and liability as joint tenants.
Accordingly, [Tenant C] and [Tenant D] were excused from the hearing and it proceeded in their absence. The claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 23 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,857.14. Cleaning and damage
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 remaining tenants did not return the keys. The landlord submitted an invoice for $286.00.
The landlord submitted photographs and a video showing that the property had been “trashed”. The damage was extensive and was intentional. There was no attempt to clean or remove rubbish. The stove top was missing. There were abandoned cars. There was paint all over the garage floor. Lamps were damaged, doors, curtains missing and there were holes in walls.
There were marks on the carpet, which the landlord tried to remove with cleaning, but some of them were burn marks. These have been replaced with carpet squares.
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.
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 damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the remaining tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord submitted invoices for all of the matters shown in the table on the first page of this decision.
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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I therefore reduced the amount claimed for the curtains exclusive of GST from $1,306.78 to $1,000. This makes the total ordered for replacement for curtains and doors $2,575.82.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Reh Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Robertson Holden has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706253 — Property damage at 609 Rangitikei Line, Cloverlea, RD 5, Palmerston North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706253 — Property damage at 609 Rangitikei Line, Cloverlea, RD 5, Palmerston North

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions