What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755209 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiri Lee Campbell must pay [The landlord/s] $4,503.94 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4755209?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10934202-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755209 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiri Lee Campbell must pay [The landlord/s] $4,503.94 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4755209?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10934202-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Gwendoline Place, Glenview, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755209 — Property damage

Order

Kiri Lee Campbell must pay [The landlord/s] $4,503.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant had requested to join the hearing by telephone. She was called on the number provided twice at the commencement of the hearing but both calls went to voice mail. The tenant was called again 15 minutes after the start of the hearing but again the call went to voice mail.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Prior to the hearing the landlord had made an application for payment of the bond to the Bond Centre and has received the bond.
Prior to hearing this order I considered who the tenant/s were under the tenancy agreement with the landlord and determined Ms Campbell was the sole tenant 1 .

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 October 2024 as a result of notice to the end the tenancy being given to the landlord by Ms Campbell. 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 (RTA). .
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that some cleaning was needed particularly of wardrobes, skirting boards, the insides of drawers and cupboards in the bathroom and laundry and of walls and doors/door frames. The carpets required cleaning. The landlord claimed $460.00 for cleaning, including carpets. However on the evidence presented I find the amount awarded is a reasonable sum for cleaning required to the standard required under the RTA.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 1 See my order issued on 25 June 2024 under application 4713810 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: Damage to walls, doors and door frames:
The landlord claims $8,050.00 for the cost to repaint around 80% of the walls in the premises and 50% of the doors and a number of window sills due to damage that occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographs which established that a number of walls, doors and window sills in rooms throughout the tenancy were damaged during the tenancy and required repainting. Some damage required filling before it could be repainted. However I am not satisfied that the landlord’s evidence is sufficient to prove the amount claimed. I am convinced from the evidence that damage has occurred to around 60% of what the landlord has claimed. In particular I find that all the walls in two bedrooms were damaged, most of the walls in the lounge have been damaged as well as some damage to the hall, several doors and a number of door frames. Accordingly I find repair costs of $4,830.00 are proven for damage that occurred.
I also need to take into account betterment and depreciation. The 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. In calculating depreciation, I consider painted walls/doors in a tenancy premises have a life span of around 10 years. I am satisfied the premises had been repainted throughout around two years before this tenancy started which means the painted surfaces were around 35% through their economic life span at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly I have awarded 65% of $4,830.00. Further comments on the damage to walls, doors and door frames:
Ms Campbell, the tenant, did not live in the house after around August 2022. Ms Rickus and her five children lived in the house after that date. The tenancy agreement stated that two adults and two children could live in the premises. The landlord did not know until late in the tenancy that there were five children living at the premises. The photographs show damage that is consistent with the house being roughly treated rather than care being taken.
The landlord provided evidence which showed the property was in good condition on 28 April 2023 when Glasshouse Property Management Limited did an inspection. The evidence leads me to the conclusion that the damage claimed for occurred after that date.
I find the damage was done by Ms Rickus and her children. Some of the damage was intentionally, such as removal of decals from walls, and some damage appears to be from careless use, such as the damage to door frames. I have no reason to consider the damage occurred in one event, and consider it occurred over a period of time. I have factored in fair wear and tear to the amount ordered and in doing so have considered that the landlord did not agree to let the property on terms that allowed five children to inhabit the premises.
Regardless, the tenant is liable for the amount awarded. As stated above tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Ms Rickus was living in the premises with Ms Campbell’s permission 2 . Repair to front door:
The landlord claims the cost of glazing a glass panel in the front door which was broken when Ms Campbell was living in the premises, and for re-putting outside windows, and replacing an axel in the ranch slider.
I am satisfied that the glass was carelessly broken and that the cost claimed to replace it is reasonable.
I am not convinced that the tenant has any liability for the repair of the windows or the ranch slider. This part of the claim is dismissed.
Filing Fee: As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression: The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95A, RTA). The landlord seeks suppression and I consider there is no reason for this not to be granted. 2 I note that this order does not prevent the tenant from making a claim against Ms Rickus in the Disputes Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755209 — Property damage at 4 Gwendoline Place, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755209 — Property damage at 4 Gwendoline Place, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?