What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745089 about?

The tribunal order states: Amelia Cooper Johns and Mark Frederic Whyman must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4745089?

Cleaning: $1,430.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $720.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $392.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $3,329.25 awarded to landlord; Painting: $6,003.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $42.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745089?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10443544-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745089 about?

The tribunal order states: Amelia Cooper Johns and Mark Frederic Whyman must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4745089?

Cleaning: $1,430.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $720.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $392.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $3,329.25 awarded to landlord; Painting: $6,003.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $42.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745089?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10443544-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1175 South Head Road, South Head, RD 1, South Head Tenancy Tribunal Case 4745089 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745089 — net $10,617.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 October 2023	$490.00	Rent arrears to 25 October 2023
Lock/key replacement	$392.15	Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$42.67	Replace smoke alarms
Rubbish removal	$950.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,430.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$720.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Painting	$6,003.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Electrical	$3,329.25	Repairs: Electrical
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,617.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,617.51

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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 tenant was evicted and therefore the keys were replaced.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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: wall holes, altering the electrical system. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The painting invoice produced by the landlord is for $10,005.00. This is to repaint all walls, ceilings and doors. While I accept that there has been some damage to walls and doors, I don’t see any evidence that the ceiling needed to be repainted. Also, this tenancy lasted for five years and there would have been some wear and tear.

I have allowed 60% of the painting invoice which amounts to $6,003.00. Methamphetamine contamination

The landlord claims that the premises were damaged by the tenant due to methamphetamine contamination. The landlord produced test results from after the tenancy ended which confirms there was methamphetamine contamination. But the issue is whether the contamination occurred during this tenancy.

The landlord said that she carried out a test that she purchased from Bunnings before commencement of the tenancy. She said that the agent advised her that it would unlikely be accepted as evidence in the Tribunal but rather it would give her peace of mind. The landlord produced a statement from a person who accompanied her when the testing was carried out. The landlord said that the test results were negative. The landlord did not produce the pre tenancy test results.

The landlord made an insurance claim in respect of the methamphetamine contamination. The landlord received an insurance payment of $30,000.00 less an excess of $2,500.00. The landlord seeks that the tenants pay the excess.

The District Court has found in situations where there is no pre tenancy test that it is almost impossible to show that the tenants caused contamination 1 . Given 1 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 the lack of evidence in this case in relation to the pre tenancy test for methamphetamine contamination, the landlord’s claim for the tenant to pay the insurance excess of $2,500.00 is dismissed. Disposal of goods

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The goods were a spa, sauna and billiard table.

The landlord estimated the value of the goods as $500.00 each in the application. The landlord did not obtain an assessment of the market value of the goods.

At the hearing the evidence was that someone offered to buy the spa for $500.00 and the billiard table for $1,500.00. There is no evidence that these were the market value for these goods.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord’s agent had tried to accommodate the tenant uplifting the items over a two-week period. The items were not uplifted by the tenant. Since then both tenants have on occasion asked for the return of the items. The landlord had communicated with Tenancy Services about this and went to the Police to seek assistance as she was fearful for her safety if the tenants returned to collect the items. No further arrangements were made for the tenants to collect the items.

In around March 2024 the landlord arranged for the items to be uplifted by a removal company and they were put into storage where they remain. The landlord has produced invoices showing that the removal and storage of the items to the beginning of June 2024 amounted to $960.00 for the sauna, $3,400.00 for the billiard table and $1,400.00 for the spa.

The landlord has not complied with the Act by not obtaining an assessment of the market value of these items 2 . The value may exceed the cost of storage but may not. Without this information the Tribunal is unable to deal with this issue.

The landlord should obtain an assessment of market value. The tenant should not be liable for the cost of storage to date. That is because the tenants had requested return of the items when they were still at the premises.

Once the landlord has the assessment a further application can be made to the Tribunal. At this stage it is impossible for the Tribunal to assess the value of these items on the evidence produced.

The landlord’s application in respect of disposal of goods is dismissed. 2 Section 62A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Other compensation for damage

The landlord applied for compensation for damage where no repairs had been carried out. The landlord had produced quotes for much of the work which she says is required. This relates to repairs including to the carport roof, removal of the diving platform, repair of swings and garage door remotes.

The District Court has held in Yin and Shelter Realty Limited v Waitai [2021] NZDC 23054 that where the landlord has claimed compensation, but the house was sold before the damage was repaired there was no loss sustained by the landlord, so compensation was declined.

In this case the landlord mentioned in the hearing that she may sell the house. If the repairs are no carried out before sale, then there is no loss sustained by the landlord. The landlord can consider applying to the Tribunal once the repairs have been carried out and when she can produce invoices for those repairs.

The landlord also claimed for damage to the window handles because she says that the tenants attempted to break into the premises after eviction. There was no evidence to support this. The landlord had possession of the premises and it was her responsibility to secure the premises. The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the window latches is dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745089 — net $10,617.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 October 2023	$490.00	Rent arrears to 25 October 2023
Lock/key replacement	$392.15	Lock/key replacement
Replace smoke alarms	$42.67	Replace smoke alarms
Rubbish removal	$950.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,430.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$720.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Painting	$6,003.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Electrical	$3,329.25	Repairs: Electrical
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,617.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,617.51