What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4706276?

The tribunal order states: Chantel Stechmann must pay Myles Alexander Grinter and Rowie O'Driscoll

How much money was awarded in case 4706276?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $349.60 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4686330 D…: $2,227.58 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $655.74 awarded to landlord; Fence: $404.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $159.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706276?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9753690-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4706276?

The tribunal order states: Chantel Stechmann must pay Myles Alexander Grinter and Rowie O'Driscoll

How much money was awarded in case 4706276?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $349.60 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4686330 D…: $2,227.58 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $655.74 awarded to landlord; Fence: $404.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $159.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706276?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9753690-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4C Weld Street, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4706276 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4706276 — net $10,467.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4686330 dated 06/10/2023	$2,227.58	Previous order application 4686330 dated 06/10/2023
Repairs: Repairs and repainting - 7 excess	$5,250.00	Repairs: Repairs and repainting - 7 excess
Repairs: Fence	$404.76	Repairs: Fence
Repairs: Bathroom	$655.74	Repairs: Bathroom
Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal
Cleaning: including deep stain removal on kitchen benchtop	$1,250.00	Cleaning: including deep stain removal on kitchen benchtop
Lock/key replacement: Remote	$349.60	Lock/key replacement: Remote
Rubbish removal	$159.77	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,467.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,467.89

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos and invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal. These are accepted and awarded. The cleaning award has been reduced slightly to reflect some tasks completed that are considered beyond that required of a tenant at the end of the tenancy.

The carpet was stained and a removal was attempted at an invoiced cost of $150.00. A photo confirmed the stain and the cost is awarded.

The tenant did not return the garage door remote. The landlord provided an invoice for $349.60 for the replacement. That is awarded.

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 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 premises were badly damaged during the tenancy. Photographs were supplied of the condition at the end, as well as at entry.

The landlord sought compensation for seven insurance excesses incurred due to having to repaint the house due to extensive markings, drawings and holes. Two other claims were less than the excess of $750.00 and I award $404.75 for the repair to the fence and $655.74 for bathroom repairs.

The landlord did not claim for other damage that was already settled with the insurer. He also withdrew a claim for loss of rent. This is currently in the hands of his insurer and in the interests of closing this application out, a withdrawal of the claim was made.

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 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.

In this matter, the premises was freshly painted and presented very well as it had been marketed for sale before this tenancy. I do not consider any depreciation should be applied. Previous order

On 6 October 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 5 October 2023 and possession to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Application filing fee

Because Myles Alexander Grinter, Rowie O'Driscoll has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4706276 — net $10,467.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4686330 dated 06/10/2023	$2,227.58	Previous order application 4686330 dated 06/10/2023
Repairs: Repairs and repainting - 7 excess	$5,250.00	Repairs: Repairs and repainting - 7 excess
Repairs: Fence	$404.76	Repairs: Fence
Repairs: Bathroom	$655.74	Repairs: Bathroom
Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal
Cleaning: including deep stain removal on kitchen benchtop	$1,250.00	Cleaning: including deep stain removal on kitchen benchtop
Lock/key replacement: Remote	$349.60	Lock/key replacement: Remote
Rubbish removal	$159.77	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,467.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,467.89

Order

Chantel Stechmann must pay Myles Alexander Grinter and Rowie O'Driscoll $10,467.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 6 October 2023 under application 4686330.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos and invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal. These are accepted and awarded. The cleaning award has been reduced slightly to reflect some tasks completed that are considered beyond that required of a tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The carpet was stained and a removal was attempted at an invoiced cost of $150.00. A photo confirmed the stain and the cost is awarded.
The tenant did not return the garage door remote. The landlord provided an invoice for $349.60 for the replacement. That is awarded.
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 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 premises were badly damaged during the tenancy. Photographs were supplied of the condition at the end, as well as at entry.
The landlord sought compensation for seven insurance excesses incurred due to having to repaint the house due to extensive markings, drawings and holes. Two other claims were less than the excess of $750.00 and I award $404.75 for the repair to the fence and $655.74 for bathroom repairs.
The landlord did not claim for other damage that was already settled with the insurer. He also withdrew a claim for loss of rent. This is currently in the hands of his insurer and in the interests of closing this application out, a withdrawal of the claim was made.
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 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.
In this matter, the premises was freshly painted and presented very well as it had been marketed for sale before this tenancy. I do not consider any depreciation should be applied. Previous order
On 6 October 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 5 October 2023 and possession to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Application filing fee
Because Myles Alexander Grinter, Rowie O'Driscoll has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706276 — Property damage at 4C Weld Street, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706276 — Property damage at 4C Weld Street, Blenheim 7201

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