What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4736290?

The tribunal order states: Adam Hodgkiss must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $2,168.94 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4736290?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $688.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes/Opener: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4736290?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4736290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10183397-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4736290?

The tribunal order states: Adam Hodgkiss must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $2,168.94 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4736290?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $688.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes/Opener: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4736290?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4736290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10183397-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Glenfield Place, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4736290 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4736290 — net $2,168.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Curtain/blinds cleaning	$550.00	Curtain/blinds cleaning
Cleaning	$688.50	Cleaning
Garage door remotes/opener	$550.00	Garage door remotes/opener
Repair 2 broken windows bedroom 2	$550.00	Repair 2 broken windows bedroom 2
Repair damaged wall bedroom 2	$550.00	Repair damaged wall bedroom 2
Repair damaged wall bedroom 1	$550.00	Repair damaged wall bedroom 2
Repair broken window bedroom 1	$400.00	Repair broken window bedroom 1
Repair exterior wall	$550.00	Repair exterior wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,168.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,168.94

Order

Adam Hodgkiss must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $2,168.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant did not attend today’s hearing and it went ahead in his absence.
This Order is to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous Order dated 25 January 2024. The hearing on that day, which the tenant also did not attend, was adjourned so that specific directions regarding service of documents could be made.
I accept the evidence provided at today’s hearing that all of the Tribunal’s directions as to service were completed and so today’s hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with his 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.
I accept the photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
At today’s hearing I was advised that the cost of rubbish removal ($870.00) was covered by rent that had been overpaid after the tenancy ended.
I was also advised that the cost of cleaning ($816.50) was partly covered by the overpaid rent and an amount of $688.50 remains outstanding. The tenant is required to pay this amount.
I accept the photographs showing that the blinds/curtains at the premises were left in a dirty state. The cost of remedying this was covered by the landlord’s insurer and so the tenant is required only to reimburse the excess to the landlord - $550.00.
I accept that the tenant did not return the 2 garage door remotes.
I also accept the evidence that the new remotes could not be programmed with the existing door opener and as a result a new garage door opener was required.
The cost of this was $900.00. However this cost was covered by the landlord’s insurer and so he tenant is required only to reimburse the excess payable on that claim - $550.00.

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 landlord makes a number of claims under this heading for damage that was caused carelessly.
I shall take each of the claims in turn. Two broken windows in bedroom 2
The first inspection of the premises during Mr Hodgkiss’s tenancy shows that there were no broken windows in this bedroom. I accept the photographs showing that at the end of the tenancy two windows in this bedroom were broken.
The cost of repairing these windows ($800.00) was covered by the landlord’s insurer and so the tenant is required to only pay the cost of the excess payable on this claim - $550.00. Damage to wall in bedroom 2
The first inspection does not show damage to the bedroom 2 wall but the end of tenancy photos shows damage. This means that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant has not provided any evidence that this was fair wear and tear.
The cost of repair was $717.50 but since this cost was covered by the landlord’s insurer the tenant is required only to pay the excess payable - $550.00. Damage to wall in bedroom 1
The first inspection shows that there was no damage to this wall. The exit photos significant dame to the wall which must have occurred during the tenancy.
The cost of repairing this wall was covered by the landlord’s insurer ($611.13) and so the tenant is only required to pay the excess - $550.00. Broken window in bedroom 1
The pre-entry photos taken just before the tenant moved in to the property show that there were no broken windows in bedroom 1.
However, I accept that the window was broken very early on in the tenancy because it was noted at the first inspection on 5 May 2021.
Mr Hodgkiss is therefore required to pay the $400.00 invoiced cost of repair. Hole in the pantry wall
The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show that there was a hole in the pantry wall. The landlord claims the $485.33 cost of repair.
I am dismissing this claim because there is no evidence that this hole occurred during Mr Hodgkiss’s tenancy. There were no photos taken of this area at the beginning of the tenancy and the property manager advised that they do not inspect this area during tenancies. Bathroom window
I am also dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim because there is insufficient evidence showing that it occurred during the tenancy.
There were no photographs taken of this area at the beginning of the tenancy to show that the window was not broken at that stage. Further, the crack in the window is so minor that it could well have been missed during inspections – indeed none of the inspections done during the tenancy note the crack. Exterior wall repair
A pre-entry photo of the exterior wall shows the wall in good repair. A photo taken at the end of the tenancy shows damage to the wall. I therefore accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant is therefore required to pay the insurance excess payable for this repair - $550.00. Filing fee reimbursement
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse them the filing fee. C ter Haar 09 April 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4736290 — net $2,168.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Curtain/blinds cleaning	$550.00	Curtain/blinds cleaning
Cleaning	$688.50	Cleaning
Garage door remotes/opener	$550.00	Garage door remotes/opener
Repair 2 broken windows bedroom 2	$550.00	Repair 2 broken windows bedroom 2
Repair damaged wall bedroom 2	$550.00	Repair damaged wall bedroom 2
Repair damaged wall bedroom 1	$550.00	Repair damaged wall bedroom 2
Repair broken window bedroom 1	$400.00	Repair broken window bedroom 1
Repair exterior wall	$550.00	Repair exterior wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,168.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,168.94

Order

Adam Hodgkiss must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $2,168.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant did not attend today’s hearing and it went ahead in his absence.
This Order is to be read together with the Tribunal’s previous Order dated 25 January 2024. The hearing on that day, which the tenant also did not attend, was adjourned so that specific directions regarding service of documents could be made.
I accept the evidence provided at today’s hearing that all of the Tribunal’s directions as to service were completed and so today’s hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with his 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.
I accept the photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
At today’s hearing I was advised that the cost of rubbish removal ($870.00) was covered by rent that had been overpaid after the tenancy ended.
I was also advised that the cost of cleaning ($816.50) was partly covered by the overpaid rent and an amount of $688.50 remains outstanding. The tenant is required to pay this amount.
I accept the photographs showing that the blinds/curtains at the premises were left in a dirty state. The cost of remedying this was covered by the landlord’s insurer and so the tenant is required only to reimburse the excess to the landlord - $550.00.
I accept that the tenant did not return the 2 garage door remotes.
I also accept the evidence that the new remotes could not be programmed with the existing door opener and as a result a new garage door opener was required.
The cost of this was $900.00. However this cost was covered by the landlord’s insurer and so he tenant is required only to reimburse the excess payable on that claim - $550.00.

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 landlord makes a number of claims under this heading for damage that was caused carelessly.
I shall take each of the claims in turn. Two broken windows in bedroom 2
The first inspection of the premises during Mr Hodgkiss’s tenancy shows that there were no broken windows in this bedroom. I accept the photographs showing that at the end of the tenancy two windows in this bedroom were broken.
The cost of repairing these windows ($800.00) was covered by the landlord’s insurer and so the tenant is required to only pay the cost of the excess payable on this claim - $550.00. Damage to wall in bedroom 2
The first inspection does not show damage to the bedroom 2 wall but the end of tenancy photos shows damage. This means that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant has not provided any evidence that this was fair wear and tear.
The cost of repair was $717.50 but since this cost was covered by the landlord’s insurer the tenant is required only to pay the excess payable - $550.00. Damage to wall in bedroom 1
The first inspection shows that there was no damage to this wall. The exit photos significant dame to the wall which must have occurred during the tenancy.
The cost of repairing this wall was covered by the landlord’s insurer ($611.13) and so the tenant is only required to pay the excess - $550.00. Broken window in bedroom 1
The pre-entry photos taken just before the tenant moved in to the property show that there were no broken windows in bedroom 1.
However, I accept that the window was broken very early on in the tenancy because it was noted at the first inspection on 5 May 2021.
Mr Hodgkiss is therefore required to pay the $400.00 invoiced cost of repair. Hole in the pantry wall
The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show that there was a hole in the pantry wall. The landlord claims the $485.33 cost of repair.
I am dismissing this claim because there is no evidence that this hole occurred during Mr Hodgkiss’s tenancy. There were no photos taken of this area at the beginning of the tenancy and the property manager advised that they do not inspect this area during tenancies. Bathroom window
I am also dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim because there is insufficient evidence showing that it occurred during the tenancy.
There were no photographs taken of this area at the beginning of the tenancy to show that the window was not broken at that stage. Further, the crack in the window is so minor that it could well have been missed during inspections – indeed none of the inspections done during the tenancy note the crack. Exterior wall repair
A pre-entry photo of the exterior wall shows the wall in good repair. A photo taken at the end of the tenancy shows damage to the wall. I therefore accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant is therefore required to pay the insurance excess payable for this repair - $550.00. Filing fee reimbursement
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse them the filing fee. C ter Haar 09 April 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4736290 — Property damage at 3B Glenfield Place, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4736290 — Property damage at 3B Glenfield Place, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions