How much money was awarded in case 4709912?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $74.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $884.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $412.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4709912?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4709912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11376999-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4709912?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $74.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $884.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $412.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4709912?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4709912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11376999-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4709912 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4709912 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4709912 — net $2,691.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning – landlord labour	$100.00	Cleaning – landlord labour
Rubbish removal	$412.73	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: products and toilet seat	$74.25	Cleaning: products and toilet seat
Lock/key replacement	$884.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: - wall damage	$1,200.00	Repairs: - wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,691.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,691.92

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jacinta Jean Adams to pay [The landlord/s] $2,692.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The balance of the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.

The tenancy ended on 9 August 2023. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has received payment of the bond and sought an additional amount in excess of the bond held. The amounts ordered do not exceed the bond held 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. 1

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. I make an order for cleaning costs (being 4 hours of the landlord’s time) and the Bunnings invoice for cleaning materials and a toilet seat by consent.

Refuse station invoices were claimed by the landlord for rubbish removal. The tenant opposed the claim for rubbish removal on the basis the rubbish was not hers. The landlord confirmed that the claim for rubbish removal only related to the tenant’s rubbish. On reviewing the move out inspection photographs, that the landlord advised were taken the day after the tenancy ended, I am satisfied that rubbish removal for the amount claimed was required and the amount claimed is reasonable. I make an order for the full amount claimed for rubbish removal.

The tenant did not return the keys. I make an order for lock / key replacement by consent.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord claimed following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: A security camera. On giving the promise set out in the RTA the tenant said that the security camera fell off the outside wall and two repairers collected it and did not return the camera. The landlord did not challenge this evidence and accordingly the claim for the security camera is dismissed. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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. 2

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). 3 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). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5

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. 6 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. 7

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls were damaged with holes. i. The tenant accepted this was done intentionally by a family member. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. ii. The claim was for $1,400 based on a handyman invoice, on hearing from the parties, I make an order for $1,200.00 as the invoice included the handyman’s time for installing an oven, which is not a expense the tenant is responsible for.

The amounts ordered are proved with pre and post tenancy photographs.

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. The amount claimed for 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(1) RTA. 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. the wall damage was for repairs only therefore no deduction is made for betterment and depreciation. Filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4709912 — net $2,691.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning – landlord labour	$100.00	Cleaning – landlord labour
Rubbish removal	$412.73	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: products and toilet seat	$74.25	Cleaning: products and toilet seat
Lock/key replacement	$884.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: - wall damage	$1,200.00	Repairs: - wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,691.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,691.92

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jacinta Jean Adams to pay [The landlord/s] $2,692.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The balance of the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.

The tenancy ended on 9 August 2023. The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has received payment of the bond and sought an additional amount in excess of the bond held. The amounts ordered do not exceed the bond held 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. 1

The tenant did not return the keys. I make an order for lock / key replacement by consent.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved with pre and post tenancy photographs.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4709912 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4709912 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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