What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4755975?

The tribunal order states: Te Amaru Nikara and Taerere Nelson must pay Linkpeople Limited $28,747.35

How much money was awarded in case 4755975?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Labour And Materials: $8,066.74 awarded to landlord; Oven: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Painting And Plastering: $12,511.60 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7,298.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755975?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755975?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10263293-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4755975?

The tribunal order states: Te Amaru Nikara and Taerere Nelson must pay Linkpeople Limited $28,747.35

How much money was awarded in case 4755975?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Labour And Materials: $8,066.74 awarded to landlord; Oven: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Painting And Plastering: $12,511.60 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7,298.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755975?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755975?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10263293-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

142 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755975 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755975 — net $28,747.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Oven	$850.00	Repairs: Oven
Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay and carpet cleaning	$7,298.57	Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay and carpet cleaning
Repairs: Labour and Materials	$8,066.74	Repairs: Labour and Materials
Repairs: Painting and plastering	$12,511.60	Repairs: Painting and plastering
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28,747.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28,747.35

Order

Te Amaru Nikara and Taerere Nelson must pay Linkpeople Limited $28,747.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Naicker for the landlord attended today’s hearing the tenants did not attend.
The tenancy ended on or about the 14 December 2023.
The landlord’s original application was for termination and the costs of remediating the property. As the tenancy has ended the landlord is claiming that costs of undertaking of repairing and remediating the property which the landlord claims was necessary due to the tenants damaging the property.
The property is a 3 level, 4-bedroom townhouse built in 2019. The tenants are the only tenants who lived in the property since it was built. In 2020 the landlord, who is a social housing provider took over the tenancy as landlord. In June 2022 the premises were extensively refurbished included being fully painted inside at significant cost to the landlord.
The tenants lived at the property with their 5 children.
There have been ongoing issues with damage to the property. The tenancy was monitored extensively for a period from June 2022 to August 2023, in or about August 2023 the tenancy managers noticed a decline in the living conditions and that damage was occurring again at the property.
The property was inspected on the 4 December 2023 and extensive photographs were taken of the property during that inspection. Shortly after the inspection the tenants asked to leave, and the landlord agreed to end the tenancy.
The property was inspected after the tenants left. Ms Naicker and the tenancy property manager Mr B attended the inspection. For reasons unknown to Ms Naicker the inspection report of that inspection was not uploaded to landlord’s file. Mr B has since left the employment of the landlord and therefore is unable to give evidence.
As Ms Naicker attended the post vacate inspection, she could confirm that the photographs taken on the 4 December 2023 show the extent and nature of most of the damage and the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. She said that since those photographs were taken other damage such as further holes or gouge marks in the walls had occurred.
The photographs taken on the 4 December 2023, speak for themselves and plainly show a house that has been significantly damaged during the tenancy there are multiple holes and gouge marks in the walls throughout the home. Many of these have been plastered over but the plastering job is sub- standard and the damage can be easily seen. There is a layer of soot over the walls in the garage, stairwell and hallway. It is not clear where the soot originated from but there appears to have been an attempt to clean it off the walls as wipe marks can be seen. Doors have holes from what looks like kick marks and most troubling of all there is a cupboard door where the interior of the door has been kicked creating a hole and there is no handle, meaning that whoever kicked the hole may have been inside the cupboard at the time the damage occurred. There is a broken window at the front door, there is paint damage on the carpet, tiles and extensive staining on the carpet throughout the home. Doors have been taken off kitchen cupboards and drawers and the bathroom vanities.

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.

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 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. 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
I am satisfied that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: • Multiple holes and gouge marks in the wall throughout the premises. • Soot damage to the walls in the garage, hall and stairwell. • Holes on at least 3 doors in the property, requiring them to be replaced. • Damaged door Jambs. • Broken window in the front door. • Broken and missing fence panels. • Damage to the exterior of the house caused by the dog chewing the cladding. • Broken cupboard doors and drawers missing in the kitchen. • Broken cupboard doors and vanities in two bathrooms. • Missing and broken blinds- other blinds were heavily stained and soiled. • Vents missing from the range hood, covers missing from drains. • Broken oven, including handle being removed, the tenants replaced the stovetop with a different type of stovetop that the landlord said it had to remove. • Heavily stained carpet, including paint on the carpet. I am also satisfied that the carpet smelt bad, likely to have been caused by pet urine, as the tenant kept 3 dogs, cats and kittens and had a pet lamb at the house during the tenancy. The landlord tried to clean the carpet and whilst some of the stains were removed the smell could not be removed. The landlord also tells me that the carpet had been infested with fleas.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord provided invoices from its contractors which gave an itemised account of the labour and materials costs. I am satisfied that the tenant should pay the full amount of plastering and painting because of the nature of the extent of the damage, and because the house had been fully repainted a year beforehand. I have calculated the other costs taking into account the work that was required to be done and taking into account depreciation and betterment.
As mentioned above I am satisfied that the carpet needed replacement. This is because after cleaning the carpet was still stained and smelt foul. The carpet was original and therefore I have allowed the landlord 60% of the cost of replacement. Carpet should be expected to last between 8 to 15 years in a residential tenancy depending on where it is, and the type of carpet.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Linkpeople Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755975 — net $28,747.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Oven	$850.00	Repairs: Oven
Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay and carpet cleaning	$7,298.57	Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay and carpet cleaning
Repairs: Labour and Materials	$8,066.74	Repairs: Labour and Materials
Repairs: Painting and plastering	$12,511.60	Repairs: Painting and plastering
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28,747.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28,747.35

Order

Te Amaru Nikara and Taerere Nelson must pay Linkpeople Limited $28,747.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Naicker for the landlord attended today’s hearing the tenants did not attend.
The tenancy ended on or about the 14 December 2023.
The landlord’s original application was for termination and the costs of remediating the property. As the tenancy has ended the landlord is claiming that costs of undertaking of repairing and remediating the property which the landlord claims was necessary due to the tenants damaging the property.
The property is a 3 level, 4-bedroom townhouse built in 2019. The tenants are the only tenants who lived in the property since it was built. In 2020 the landlord, who is a social housing provider took over the tenancy as landlord. In June 2022 the premises were extensively refurbished included being fully painted inside at significant cost to the landlord.
The tenants lived at the property with their 5 children.
There have been ongoing issues with damage to the property. The tenancy was monitored extensively for a period from June 2022 to August 2023, in or about August 2023 the tenancy managers noticed a decline in the living conditions and that damage was occurring again at the property.
The property was inspected on the 4 December 2023 and extensive photographs were taken of the property during that inspection. Shortly after the inspection the tenants asked to leave, and the landlord agreed to end the tenancy.
The property was inspected after the tenants left. Ms Naicker and the tenancy property manager Mr B attended the inspection. For reasons unknown to Ms Naicker the inspection report of that inspection was not uploaded to landlord’s file. Mr B has since left the employment of the landlord and therefore is unable to give evidence.
As Ms Naicker attended the post vacate inspection, she could confirm that the photographs taken on the 4 December 2023 show the extent and nature of most of the damage and the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. She said that since those photographs were taken other damage such as further holes or gouge marks in the walls had occurred.
The photographs taken on the 4 December 2023, speak for themselves and plainly show a house that has been significantly damaged during the tenancy there are multiple holes and gouge marks in the walls throughout the home. Many of these have been plastered over but the plastering job is sub- standard and the damage can be easily seen. There is a layer of soot over the walls in the garage, stairwell and hallway. It is not clear where the soot originated from but there appears to have been an attempt to clean it off the walls as wipe marks can be seen. Doors have holes from what looks like kick marks and most troubling of all there is a cupboard door where the interior of the door has been kicked creating a hole and there is no handle, meaning that whoever kicked the hole may have been inside the cupboard at the time the damage occurred. There is a broken window at the front door, there is paint damage on the carpet, tiles and extensive staining on the carpet throughout the home. Doors have been taken off kitchen cupboards and drawers and the bathroom vanities.

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.

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 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. 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
I am satisfied that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: • Multiple holes and gouge marks in the wall throughout the premises. • Soot damage to the walls in the garage, hall and stairwell. • Holes on at least 3 doors in the property, requiring them to be replaced. • Damaged door Jambs. • Broken window in the front door. • Broken and missing fence panels. • Damage to the exterior of the house caused by the dog chewing the cladding. • Broken cupboard doors and drawers missing in the kitchen. • Broken cupboard doors and vanities in two bathrooms. • Missing and broken blinds- other blinds were heavily stained and soiled. • Vents missing from the range hood, covers missing from drains. • Broken oven, including handle being removed, the tenants replaced the stovetop with a different type of stovetop that the landlord said it had to remove. • Heavily stained carpet, including paint on the carpet. I am also satisfied that the carpet smelt bad, likely to have been caused by pet urine, as the tenant kept 3 dogs, cats and kittens and had a pet lamb at the house during the tenancy. The landlord tried to clean the carpet and whilst some of the stains were removed the smell could not be removed. The landlord also tells me that the carpet had been infested with fleas.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord provided invoices from its contractors which gave an itemised account of the labour and materials costs. I am satisfied that the tenant should pay the full amount of plastering and painting because of the nature of the extent of the damage, and because the house had been fully repainted a year beforehand. I have calculated the other costs taking into account the work that was required to be done and taking into account depreciation and betterment.
As mentioned above I am satisfied that the carpet needed replacement. This is because after cleaning the carpet was still stained and smelt foul. The carpet was original and therefore I have allowed the landlord 60% of the cost of replacement. Carpet should be expected to last between 8 to 15 years in a residential tenancy depending on where it is, and the type of carpet.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Linkpeople Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755975 — Property damage at 142 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755975 — Property damage at 142 Edinburgh Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

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