What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4716054 about?

The tribunal order states: Jaimee-lee Dahya must pay [The landlord/s] $12,630.55 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4716054?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $331.53 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,654.08 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,334.50 awarded to landlord; Storage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716054?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9857514-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4716054 about?

The tribunal order states: Jaimee-lee Dahya must pay [The landlord/s] $12,630.55 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4716054?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $331.53 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,654.08 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,334.50 awarded to landlord; Storage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716054?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9857514-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4716054 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716054 — net $12,630.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$4,334.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$2,300.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: oven	$331.53	Cleaning: oven
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$460.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$3,654.08	Repairs
Compensation for lost rental	$780.00	Compensation for lost rental
Storage	$400.00	Storage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,630.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,630.55

Jaimee-lee Dahya must pay [The landlord/s] $12,630.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.

The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$4,334.50 Cleaning$2,300.00 Cleaning: oven$331.53 Carpet Cleaning$350.00 Lawns and Garden work$460.00 Repairs$3,654.08 Compensation for lost rental$780.00 Storage$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$12,630.55 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$12,630.55

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent 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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, it appeared as if the tenant had taken what she wanted and simply walked out leaving behind a substantial quantity of rubbish and other discarded items. The photographs show that the property was in a filthy condition.

The landlord provided detailed invoices and receipts for the work required and, while large, are in keeping with charges regularly seen by the Tribunal for such substantial work.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Two holes in the hallway wall $374.46. b. A window was broken $563.40. c. Beading around the broken window was discarded and the woodwork chewed by a pet or pets $735.87. d. The front gate required rehanging and the latch repaired $70.00. e. The kitchen drain was completely blocked $161.00. f. The front door knob was broken $102.76. g. A kitchen cupboard was broken $227.50. h. The shower curtain and the bathroom door lock were broken $245.46. i. Underfloor insulation was damaged $893.56. j. The air grill of the outside insulation unit was damaged and required replacement $280.07.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I am satisfied that the detailed invoices and receipts submitted are fair and reasonable. 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. I do not believe that the landlord is in any better position having carried out the required works.

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord is unable to contact the tenant.

It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord has stored the goods while they have tried unsuccessfully to contact the tenant. It is appropriate they be awarded a modest amount for their trouble and inconvenience.

The landlord has also claimed for loss of rent for the period during which the property was unavailable to be rented due the state it was left in by the tenant. While a landlord is to expect to be without rent for a week or two between tenancies, the scale of the rubbish that needed to be removed and the extent of the cleaning and repairs required mean that it is appropriate to compensate the landlord for two weeks’ rental.

The landlord’s application included claims for exemplary damages. As explained at the hearing, the claims do not indicate any specific unlawful acts for which exemplary damages are available under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages are therefore dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716054 — net $12,630.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$4,334.50	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$2,300.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: oven	$331.53	Cleaning: oven
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$460.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$3,654.08	Repairs
Compensation for lost rental	$780.00	Compensation for lost rental
Storage	$400.00	Storage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,630.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,630.55

Order

Jaimee-lee Dahya must pay [The landlord/s] $12,630.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$4,334.50 Cleaning$2,300.00 Cleaning: oven$331.53 Carpet Cleaning$350.00 Lawns and Garden work$460.00 Repairs$3,654.08 Compensation for lost rental$780.00 Storage$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$12,630.55 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$12,630.55

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent 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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, it appeared as if the tenant had taken what she wanted and simply walked out leaving behind a substantial quantity of rubbish and other discarded items. The photographs show that the property was in a filthy condition.
The landlord provided detailed invoices and receipts for the work required and, while large, are in keeping with charges regularly seen by the Tribunal for such substantial work.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Two holes in the hallway wall $374.46. b. A window was broken $563.40. c. Beading around the broken window was discarded and the woodwork chewed by a pet or pets $735.87. d. The front gate required rehanging and the latch repaired $70.00. e. The kitchen drain was completely blocked $161.00. f. The front door knob was broken $102.76. g. A kitchen cupboard was broken $227.50. h. The shower curtain and the bathroom door lock were broken $245.46. i. Underfloor insulation was damaged $893.56. j. The air grill of the outside insulation unit was damaged and required replacement $280.07.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that the detailed invoices and receipts submitted are fair and reasonable. 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. I do not believe that the landlord is in any better position having carried out the required works.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is unable to contact the tenant.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has stored the goods while they have tried unsuccessfully to contact the tenant. It is appropriate they be awarded a modest amount for their trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord has also claimed for loss of rent for the period during which the property was unavailable to be rented due the state it was left in by the tenant. While a landlord is to expect to be without rent for a week or two between tenancies, the scale of the rubbish that needed to be removed and the extent of the cleaning and repairs required mean that it is appropriate to compensate the landlord for two weeks’ rental.
The landlord’s application included claims for exemplary damages. As explained at the hearing, the claims do not indicate any specific unlawful acts for which exemplary damages are available under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages are therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716054 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716054 — Property damage

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