What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753450 about?

The tribunal order states: [Tenant 2] and Bradley Samuel Gibbons must pay [The landlord/s] $11,311.72

How much money was awarded in case 4753450?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,498.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,077.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,367.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,920.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity: $1,113.31 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $408.12 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $152.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753450?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10712831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753450 about?

The tribunal order states: [Tenant 2] and Bradley Samuel Gibbons must pay [The landlord/s] $11,311.72

How much money was awarded in case 4753450?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,498.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,077.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,367.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,920.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity: $1,113.31 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $408.12 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $152.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753450?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10712831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753450 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753450. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 November 2023	$5,920.00	Rent arrears to 23 November 2023
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$408.12	Rubbish removal
Carpet replacement	$2,498.00	Carpet replacement
Door replacement (x2	$1,077.55	Door replacement (x2
Repairs to holes in walls and painting two walls	$1,367.88	Repairs to holes in walls and painting two walls
Window repairs to french doors	$253.00	Window repairs to french doors
Lock/key replacement and repair	$451.00	Lock/key replacement and repair
Replace smoke alarms and fittings	$152.42	Replace smoke alarms and fittings
Replace vanity	$1,113.31	Replace vanity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by [The property manager/s]. [Tenant 2] attended with a support person. There was no appearance by Mr Gibbons. I am satisfied that Mr Gibbons has been served with, and has had notice of the hearing, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.

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

This property had previously been managed by a different agency. The current property managers took over in September 2023.

The tenancy ended on 23 November 2023 following a mediator’s order made on 31 October 2023. The bond has now been released to the landlord. [Tenant 2] explained that she had not had any contact with Mr Gibbons following the tenancy. She said that the relationship had been toxic and that she was left in a very difficult position at the end of the tenancy having to clean up the house by herself and remove rubbish without any means to do so. She accepted liability for some damage and the fact that there was a rescue dog at the property that caused damage but said that Mr Gibbons had been responsible for the rubbish and any intentional damage.

As Mr Gibbons did not attend I was unable to hear any evidence from him either accepting or refuting whether or not he was in fact responsible for the rubbish and damage as claimed by [Tenant 2].

I explained to [tenant 2] that as both she and Mr Gibbons are both named as tenants in the Tenancy Agreement they are joint and severally liable and that any claims proved by the landlord will be made against both of them. I accept that in making orders today I may be making orders in respect of issues that were only caused by one of them. I explained to [Tenant 2] that if she Mr Gibbons have cannot agree between themselves as to the amount that each should be responsible (as between each other) they may wish to take advice from either Citizens Advice Bureau or a Community Law Centre regarding the available options.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove that $5,920 was owing at the end of the tenancy.

This amount of $5,920 is proved and was accepted by [Tenant 2].

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 landlord said that the property had been refurbished prior to the tenants moving in and that most of the fittings were new. When the landlord conducted the exit inspection they found that the vanity was dirty, the shower had mould, there were scuff marks on the walls, the oven wasn’t cleaned and the property was generally not clean and tidy.

The landlord said further that there was a rubbish left behind inside and a reasonably large amount left outside both in the garden and in the shed.

The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and the rubbish.

The landlord produced an invoice from [Maintenance company] for rubbish removal in the amount of $408.12 (including GST) and cleaning in the amount of $483.00 (including GST).

The claim for rubbish removal is proved. Tenants should not leave any rubbish behind. The amount claimed is reasonable and I order that the tenants should compensate the landlord in the amount of $408.12 for rubbish removal and disposal. I record that [Tenant 2] explained that the rubbish left behind belonged to Mr Gibbons.

The claim for cleaning is proved in part. Tenants are required to leave a property “reasonably clean and tidy” but do not need to leave a property in spotless condition, ready for a new tenant to move into. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies. Having reviewed the exit inspection photos I consider that amount of $250.00 is a reasonable portion of the invoice to get the property to the reasonable clean and tidy standard. I order that the tenants compensate the landlord $250.00 for cleaning.

The landlord explained that the tenant did not return the keys. When the landlord went to the house to inspect if found that someone had tampered with the bolt at the front, and so the door didn’t close. The locks had to be replaced and new keys made.

[Tenant 2] explained that she didn’t in fact have a key to the door and that it had not closed properly for some time. She said that Mr Gibbons had damaged the door by kicking it and that is why it didn’t work. She had asked the previous property manager to put a deadbolt on the door but received no response (but did not inform the landlord about the damage to the lock).

The landlord was entitled to repair the lock and have new keys cut. The landlord produced an invoice from the [locksmith] in the amount of $451.00 and I order that the tenants pay compensation of this amount of the landlord.

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. Carpets

The landlord explained that the carpets had to be replaced. [The property manager/s] said that the carpet so smelt so strongly of dog urine at the end of the tenancy that the contractors engaged to do other repairs would not enter until the carpet had been cleaned/replaced. The carpets were cleaned but did not solve the problem and the landlord had to remove the carpet and underlay, treat the floorboards underneath, and replace the carpet and underlay. The carpet had been new at the start of the tenancy.

[Tenant 2] said that they had kept a rescue dog at the tenancy that had caused the carpet issues. She accepted that the carpet needed to be replaced.

The landlord produced and invoice in the amount of $2,498.00 for the carpet removal and replacement. The landlord did not seek to claim for cleaning the carpet.

I order that the tenants compensate the landlord in the amount of $2,498.00 for the damage to the carpet. Missing doors

There were two doors originally in the property that were missing at the exit inspection. The landlord said that these were found under the house and broken in half. The doors had been either new or recently painted at the start of the tenancy.

[Tenant 2] said that the doors were damaged by the dog and that they removed them to avoid even more damage occurring. She accepted the amount claimed by the landlord.

The landlord produced an invoice from [maintenance company] for the replacement doors and installation in the amount of $1,077.55 and I order that the tenants compensate the landlord for this amount. Smoke alarms and kitchen repair lights

The landlord explained that the photoelectric smoke alarms were removed and the fittings were damaged. They had to be replaced. The light switch in the kitchen was also damaged.

The landlord produced and invoice from [electrician] for the damage $314.62.

[Tenant 2] accepted the landlord’s claim in respect of the smoke alarms but disputed that the light switch in the kitchen had been damaged during the tenancy. [The property manager/s] produced a photo of the light switch but did not have a photo from the start of the tenancy. [Tenant 2] said that she raised the issue with the previous property manager but that nothing was done about it. In the circumstances [The property manager/s] said that the landlord would withdraw that part of the claim.

I have therefore deducted the portion relating to the light switch from the invoice claimed by the landlord. the amount ordered for the smoke alarms is $152.42 ($132.54 plus GST). Glass replacement

The landlord claimed for two windows as they found broken glass on one french door and a broken bedroom window. The landlord produced and invoice from [glazier] for the repairs in the amount of $506.00.

[Tenant 2] explained that Mr Gibbons threw something at the French doors which caused the window to break. However she said that the glass on the other window was cracked at the start of the tenancy and that the window has a vinyl patch over it. She said that she asked the previous property manager to repair it but that no repair ever took place. The landlord did not have a from any point in the tenancy showing the window intact.

In the circumstances I order that the tenants compensate the landlord for one replacement window, which I estimate to be half the invoice produced. I order compensation in the amount of $253.00. Holes in walls

[The property manager/s] explained that there was a hole in the wall in the kitchen (deep scratch marks), holes in the hallway, bedroom and living area. Two of the walls needed to be repainted due to minor holes. She explained that [Tenant 2] had made an attempt to patch these herself but that they needed to be professionally repaired.

[Tenant 2] accepted that there were holes in the property. She said some of the minor ones were caused by putting up photos and the hole was caused by the dog in the kitchen. She said that the other holes were caused by Mr Gibbons intentionally.

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,367.88 for “Patch and paint holes in walls, living room, bedroom hallway and kitchen NB 2x walls need to be fully repainted”.

[Tenant 2] accepted the amount claimed by the landlord. I do not consider that any depreciation is required as the property had been refurbished prior to the start of the tenancy. The amount claimed is reasonable and the landlord has not done more work than necessary. The amount of $1,367.88 is awarded. Bathroom vanity

The landlord produced photos showing a large crack across the vanity. [Tenant 2] accepted that crack, she said that she was trying to clean mould on the ceiling, stood on it, and it cracked.

The landlord produced a quote in the amount of $1,113.31 to remove, replace and install a new vanity, together with confirmation to the contractor to proceed. The landlord confirmed that the work had been completed for the amount quoted. I order the amount of $1,113.31. There is no basis for depreciation as the vanity was new at the start of the tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression

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

The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the substantially successful party pursuant to Section 95A(1) RTA.

[Tenant 2] also sought name suppression. She is not the successful party overall but she had found herself in a difficult position as she is jointly and severally liable with Mr Gibbons who did not engage with the Tribunal process. She attended the hearing and was upfront about the circumstances which led to the end of the tenancy. She readily accepted liability where appropriate and disputed matters where she did not consider that either she or Mr Gibbons were responsible and was successful in each disputed matter. I therefore consider that it is appropriate for me to exercise my discretion pursuant to Section 95A(4) RTA to suppress [Tenant 2]’s name and do not consider that there is an overriding interest in publication. If [Tenant 2] had been the sole tenant it is likely that the parties may have been able to reach an agreed settlement. The landlord did not oppose the Tribunal making an order suppressing [Tenant 2]’s name.

Mr Gibbons did not appear or apply for an order for name suppression and so I am unable to consider making an order suppressing his name or identifying details.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753450. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 November 2023	$5,920.00	Rent arrears to 23 November 2023
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$408.12	Rubbish removal
Carpet replacement	$2,498.00	Carpet replacement
Door replacement (x2	$1,077.55	Door replacement (x2
Repairs to holes in walls and painting two walls	$1,367.88	Repairs to holes in walls and painting two walls
Window repairs to french doors	$253.00	Window repairs to french doors
Lock/key replacement and repair	$451.00	Lock/key replacement and repair
Replace smoke alarms and fittings	$152.42	Replace smoke alarms and fittings
Replace vanity	$1,113.31	Replace vanity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement