What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4737910?

The tribunal order states: Tara Young must pay Habitat For Humanity Central Region Limited $1,198.78

How much money was awarded in case 4737910?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $137.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $52.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $116.27 awarded to landlord; Re Hang Doors: $32.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Roller Door: $160.99 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $126.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4737910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4737910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10064494-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4737910?

The tribunal order states: Tara Young must pay Habitat For Humanity Central Region Limited $1,198.78

How much money was awarded in case 4737910?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $137.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $52.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $116.27 awarded to landlord; Re Hang Doors: $32.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Roller Door: $160.99 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $126.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4737910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4737910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10064494-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 49 Tonga Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4737910 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 2, 49 Tonga Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4737910 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4737910 — net $1,198.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$299.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$275.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Roller door	$160.99	Repairs: Roller door
Light bulbs/batteries	$52.52	Light bulbs/batteries
Cleaning	$137.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$126.00	Rubbish removal
Re hang doors	$32.00	Re hang doors
Lock/key replacement	$116.27	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$1,198.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,198.78

Claims and awards for application 4737910 — net $1,198.78 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $299.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $275.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Repairs: Roller door

Amount: $160.99
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Roller door

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $52.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Cleaning

Amount: $137.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Tara Young must pay Habitat For Humanity Central Region Limited $1,198.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
Ms Young did not. The application was served on her at the email address provided as an address for service and a more current email address that she provided to the landlord. While the application was made 5 days outside the 2- month time frame for a landlord to make an application and rely on the address for service provided on the tenancy agreement, I am satisfied that it is likely Ms Young has notice of the hearing via email and text and has not responded to correspondence since she left, despite the landlords attempts to contact her.
In addition, the landlord is a social housing provider and the claims made are substantially less than would be awarded in a commercial landlord/tenant arrangement, largely because of the voluntary component. For example, the cleaning quote alone was more than $900 for commercial cleaners whereas $137 is claimed and awarded.
In short, even had the tenant attended, the awards would have been made as the evidence, regarding the state of the property pre and post tenancy, is so compellingly clear.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarms.
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.
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: doors and walls were extensively damaged; almost certainly by intentional violence. 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 not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The claims are considerably less than actual costs of repair.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4737910 — net $1,198.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$299.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$275.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Roller door	$160.99	Repairs: Roller door
Light bulbs/batteries	$52.52	Light bulbs/batteries
Cleaning	$137.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$126.00	Rubbish removal
Re hang doors	$32.00	Re hang doors
Lock/key replacement	$116.27	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$1,198.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,198.78

Claims and awards for application 4737910 — net $1,198.78 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $299.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $275.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Repairs: Roller door

Amount: $160.99
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Roller door

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $52.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Cleaning

Amount: $137.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Tara Young must pay Habitat For Humanity Central Region Limited $1,198.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
Ms Young did not. The application was served on her at the email address provided as an address for service and a more current email address that she provided to the landlord. While the application was made 5 days outside the 2- month time frame for a landlord to make an application and rely on the address for service provided on the tenancy agreement, I am satisfied that it is likely Ms Young has notice of the hearing via email and text and has not responded to correspondence since she left, despite the landlords attempts to contact her.
In addition, the landlord is a social housing provider and the claims made are substantially less than would be awarded in a commercial landlord/tenant arrangement, largely because of the voluntary component. For example, the cleaning quote alone was more than $900 for commercial cleaners whereas $137 is claimed and awarded.
In short, even had the tenant attended, the awards would have been made as the evidence, regarding the state of the property pre and post tenancy, is so compellingly clear.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarms.
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.
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: doors and walls were extensively damaged; almost certainly by intentional violence. 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 not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The claims are considerably less than actual costs of repair.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4737910 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 49 Tonga Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4737910 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 49 Tonga Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions