What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752526?

The tribunal order states: Folau Tonga must pay Saltark Property Management Limited $6,715.16

How much money was awarded in case 4752526?

Bin Hire: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Floor Resurfacing: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Sander Hire: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Materials: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $543.58 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,731.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752526?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752526?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10107601-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752526?

The tribunal order states: Folau Tonga must pay Saltark Property Management Limited $6,715.16

How much money was awarded in case 4752526?

Bin Hire: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Floor Resurfacing: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Sander Hire: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Materials: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $543.58 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,731.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752526?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752526?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10107601-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Antrim Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752526 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752526 — net $6,715.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 March 2023	$3,731.14	Rent arrears to 22 March 2023
Wall repairs and painting	$1,500.00	Wall repairs and painting
Labour: rubbish removal	$540.00	Labour: rubbish removal
Bin hire	$780.00	Bin hire
Floor resurfacing	$500.00	Floor resurfacing
Repair doors and hardware	$300.00	Repair doors and hardware
Floor sander hire	$100.00	Floor sander hire
Window glass repairs	$543.58	Window glass repairs
Materials	$500.00	Materials
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,715.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,715.16

Order

Folau Tonga must pay Saltark Property Management Limited $6,715.16 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The application was filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant was served as required by s.91A(2)(c).
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?

A Mediator’s Order was made on 13 February 2023. That Order set out agreed arrangements for payment of rent arrears on the basis that if the arrangement was not adhered to, the tenancy would end. The tenant did not comply with those arrangements and eviction took place on 23 March 2023.
The Mediator’s Order records that rent arrears of $2,424.00 were owed to pay the rent to 16 February 2023. Rent from 17 February 2023 to 22 March 2023 was payable, amounting to $3157.14. That, with the $2,424.00 owed at 16 February 2023 gives a total of $5581.14 payable. The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that since the date of the Mediators Order rent of $1,850.00 has been paid, leaving a balance due of $3731.14. Bond
The landlord’s claim does not make allowance for the bond. The Bond Centre records show that the bond has been released to the landlord and credit needs given to the tenant accordingly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The evidence

There are some difficulties with the evidence supporting this application.
First, there was no inspection undertaken at the end of the tenancy. The last inspection undertaken was on 1 November 2022 over 5 months before the date on which the tenancy ended. It is the date the tenancy ends at which the question of whether the tenant had met his end of tenancy obligations needs to be assessed.
Relying on the property manager’s evidence, it is reasonable in my view, to infer that any property damage proved to exist at the date of that inspection was not repaired by the tenant before the end of the tenancy.
Without that inspection evidence however, it is difficult to make a clear assessment of the overall condition of the premises when the tenant vacated.
Second, there is no evidence showing the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tribunal must determine whether the claims relate to damage caused during the tenancy and no not seek compensation for pre-existing damage. Where a claim is proved, a 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. It is difficult to accurately make that assessment without an understanding of the pre-tenancy condition of depreciating items such as painted wall services and polished floors and some idea of their existing age.
Third, the landlord provided no evidence as to the owner’s ability to make an insurance claim in respect of the damage. Opportunity was given to the property manager to provide that information after the hearing. Having considered the policy terms, I am satisfied that intentional tenant damage is not covered. The damage for which compensation is claimed is more likely than not to have been intentionally caused.
Fourth, the primary evidence of loss supporting the landlord’s claim is in the form of a single tax invoice in the sum of $11,668.76 which covers a large amount of work some of which may be the owner’s responsibility some of which may be the tenant’s responsibility and some of which may be a combination of both. No information is given as to the time spent on the different components of the work or the hourly rate charged.
That makes it very difficult for the Tribunal to assess the reasonableness of the charges claimed or the costs associated with repair of the different items of claimed damage. Without any more detailed evidence, the Tribunal will have to make a generalised assessment of what appears to be fair compensation for damage proved to have been caused during the tenancy and which is more than fair wear and tear. As this is the landlord’s claim to prove, any areas of doubt must favour the tenant.
Finally, it appears that significant refurbishment work was carried out after the tenancy ended. The tax invoice from Stoke Construction Limited for $11,668.76 is headed, “Work required due to tenant damage”. That invoice appears to be the builder’s assessment of the work that was required to repair damage that the builder assumed or was told was the tenant’s responsibility. That sum is part of a larger total cost of $33,853.61 as shown in a tax invoice from Stoke Construction Limited headed, “Refurbishment of house as requested.”
The landlord is not entitled to compensation for the cost of work done to repair damage caused by the tenant, if that repair work was intended to be done anyway as part of an overall refurbishment of the premises - because then that cost does not represent a loss caused by the tenant’s actions.
The owner chose not to give evidence about those matters.
All the Tribunal can responsibly do is assess what damage is proved to have been caused during the tenancy, that is beyond fair wear and tear and make an estimate of what would represent fair compensation to the landlord for the cost of repairing that damage.
For the reasons given the estimate will need to be conservative in terms of the amounts awarded. Windows
The evidence satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that at the end of the tenancy there were broken windows. I find it more likely than not that the windows were broken during the tenancy. The tenant has not provided any evidence to show a cause that he would not be responsible for, so I find that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing those windows.
That cost is proved by an invoice provided. Skip Hire
I'm satisfied on balance that at the end of the tenancy a significant quantity of rubbish was left by the tenant. That is consistent with the November inspection report and with the property manager’s evidence.
The landlord has provided evidence of having paid for two rubbish skips to be provided to remove that rubbish and I am satisfied that the tenant should reimburse the landlord for that cost. Damage repair
The photographs show clearly there were holes and marks on many of the walls in the premises. Scribblings and drawings are apparent on many surfaces as well and there is smoke damage to ceilings.
I find it proved on balance that the repainting of those surfaces was necessary as a consequence of the damage. Allowance needs to be made for the existing age of the painted interior surfaces.
Damage is shown to door handles, the toilet cistern and it seems more likely than not that further damage to the wooden floors, beyond fair wear and tear, occurred during the tenancy. The tenant should compensate the landlord for those repair costs and should make a contribution towards the cost of the floors being resurfaced.
As noted the photographs show a large quantity of rubbish left at the premises, sufficient to require 2 skip bins. No identification is made of the labour hours charged for removing the rubbish into those bins.
My assessment of the appropriate compensation sums for that work is set out above.
Because Saltark Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752526 — net $6,715.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 March 2023	$3,731.14	Rent arrears to 22 March 2023
Wall repairs and painting	$1,500.00	Wall repairs and painting
Labour: rubbish removal	$540.00	Labour: rubbish removal
Bin hire	$780.00	Bin hire
Floor resurfacing	$500.00	Floor resurfacing
Repair doors and hardware	$300.00	Repair doors and hardware
Floor sander hire	$100.00	Floor sander hire
Window glass repairs	$543.58	Window glass repairs
Materials	$500.00	Materials
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,715.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,715.16

Order

Folau Tonga must pay Saltark Property Management Limited $6,715.16 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The application was filed more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant was served as required by s.91A(2)(c).
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?

A Mediator’s Order was made on 13 February 2023. That Order set out agreed arrangements for payment of rent arrears on the basis that if the arrangement was not adhered to, the tenancy would end. The tenant did not comply with those arrangements and eviction took place on 23 March 2023.
The Mediator’s Order records that rent arrears of $2,424.00 were owed to pay the rent to 16 February 2023. Rent from 17 February 2023 to 22 March 2023 was payable, amounting to $3157.14. That, with the $2,424.00 owed at 16 February 2023 gives a total of $5581.14 payable. The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that since the date of the Mediators Order rent of $1,850.00 has been paid, leaving a balance due of $3731.14. Bond
The landlord’s claim does not make allowance for the bond. The Bond Centre records show that the bond has been released to the landlord and credit needs given to the tenant accordingly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The evidence

There are some difficulties with the evidence supporting this application.
First, there was no inspection undertaken at the end of the tenancy. The last inspection undertaken was on 1 November 2022 over 5 months before the date on which the tenancy ended. It is the date the tenancy ends at which the question of whether the tenant had met his end of tenancy obligations needs to be assessed.
Relying on the property manager’s evidence, it is reasonable in my view, to infer that any property damage proved to exist at the date of that inspection was not repaired by the tenant before the end of the tenancy.
Without that inspection evidence however, it is difficult to make a clear assessment of the overall condition of the premises when the tenant vacated.
Second, there is no evidence showing the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tribunal must determine whether the claims relate to damage caused during the tenancy and no not seek compensation for pre-existing damage. Where a claim is proved, a 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. It is difficult to accurately make that assessment without an understanding of the pre-tenancy condition of depreciating items such as painted wall services and polished floors and some idea of their existing age.
Third, the landlord provided no evidence as to the owner’s ability to make an insurance claim in respect of the damage. Opportunity was given to the property manager to provide that information after the hearing. Having considered the policy terms, I am satisfied that intentional tenant damage is not covered. The damage for which compensation is claimed is more likely than not to have been intentionally caused.
Fourth, the primary evidence of loss supporting the landlord’s claim is in the form of a single tax invoice in the sum of $11,668.76 which covers a large amount of work some of which may be the owner’s responsibility some of which may be the tenant’s responsibility and some of which may be a combination of both. No information is given as to the time spent on the different components of the work or the hourly rate charged.
That makes it very difficult for the Tribunal to assess the reasonableness of the charges claimed or the costs associated with repair of the different items of claimed damage. Without any more detailed evidence, the Tribunal will have to make a generalised assessment of what appears to be fair compensation for damage proved to have been caused during the tenancy and which is more than fair wear and tear. As this is the landlord’s claim to prove, any areas of doubt must favour the tenant.
Finally, it appears that significant refurbishment work was carried out after the tenancy ended. The tax invoice from Stoke Construction Limited for $11,668.76 is headed, “Work required due to tenant damage”. That invoice appears to be the builder’s assessment of the work that was required to repair damage that the builder assumed or was told was the tenant’s responsibility. That sum is part of a larger total cost of $33,853.61 as shown in a tax invoice from Stoke Construction Limited headed, “Refurbishment of house as requested.”
The landlord is not entitled to compensation for the cost of work done to repair damage caused by the tenant, if that repair work was intended to be done anyway as part of an overall refurbishment of the premises - because then that cost does not represent a loss caused by the tenant’s actions.
The owner chose not to give evidence about those matters.
All the Tribunal can responsibly do is assess what damage is proved to have been caused during the tenancy, that is beyond fair wear and tear and make an estimate of what would represent fair compensation to the landlord for the cost of repairing that damage.
For the reasons given the estimate will need to be conservative in terms of the amounts awarded. Windows
The evidence satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that at the end of the tenancy there were broken windows. I find it more likely than not that the windows were broken during the tenancy. The tenant has not provided any evidence to show a cause that he would not be responsible for, so I find that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing those windows.
That cost is proved by an invoice provided. Skip Hire
I'm satisfied on balance that at the end of the tenancy a significant quantity of rubbish was left by the tenant. That is consistent with the November inspection report and with the property manager’s evidence.
The landlord has provided evidence of having paid for two rubbish skips to be provided to remove that rubbish and I am satisfied that the tenant should reimburse the landlord for that cost. Damage repair
The photographs show clearly there were holes and marks on many of the walls in the premises. Scribblings and drawings are apparent on many surfaces as well and there is smoke damage to ceilings.
I find it proved on balance that the repainting of those surfaces was necessary as a consequence of the damage. Allowance needs to be made for the existing age of the painted interior surfaces.
Damage is shown to door handles, the toilet cistern and it seems more likely than not that further damage to the wooden floors, beyond fair wear and tear, occurred during the tenancy. The tenant should compensate the landlord for those repair costs and should make a contribution towards the cost of the floors being resurfaced.
As noted the photographs show a large quantity of rubbish left at the premises, sufficient to require 2 skip bins. No identification is made of the labour hours charged for removing the rubbish into those bins.
My assessment of the appropriate compensation sums for that work is set out above.
Because Saltark Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752526 — Rent arrears at 34 Antrim Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752526 — Rent arrears at 34 Antrim Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions