What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758438?

The tribunal order states: Cody Heywood must pay Avery Rental Maintenance Ltd As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4758438?

Cleaning: $1,030.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4700207 D…: $3,917.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,549.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $417.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,449.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,965.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Door/Plaster Holes: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: drapes, depreci…: $493.32 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Shades: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758438?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758438?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10523199-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758438?

The tribunal order states: Cody Heywood must pay Avery Rental Maintenance Ltd As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4758438?

Cleaning: $1,030.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4700207 D…: $3,917.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,549.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $417.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,449.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,965.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Door/Plaster Holes: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: drapes, depreci…: $493.32 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Shades: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758438?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758438?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10523199-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758438 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758438 — net $12,092.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,965.28	Rent arrears
Previous order application 4700207 dated 27/10/2023	$3,917.58	Previous order application 4700207 dated 27/10/2023
Carpet replacement, depreciated 33	$1,549.68	Carpet replacement, depreciated 33
Lock/key replacement	$417.90	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$1,449.20	Window repairs
Repairs: replace door/plaster holes	$690.00	Repairs: replace door/plaster holes
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$1,030.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$360.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: drapes, depreciated 75	$493.32	Replace furnishings: drapes, depreciated 75
Replace furnishings: light shades	$180.00	Replace furnishings: light shades
Net award	$12,092.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,092.96

The landlord attended the hearing. However, the tenant made no appearance.

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

The tenancy began on 28 May 2016, with the lease involving the tenant and his former partner. At some stage prior to the events discussed below, the former partner left the tenancy. However, the bond centre was not advised of this and no change to bond or lease arrangements was made.

On 27 October 2023, Adjudicator Lash terminated the tenancy and made an award of arrears of $3917.58. The tenant refused to vacate the tenancy when an attempt was made by the landlord to repossess on 30 October 2023. The need for a bailiff to become involved, and further delays meant that the landlord was not able to re-enter until 4 December 2023.

How much is owed for rent?

Repossession occurred on 4 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove that rent for the period between 27 October 2023 and 4 December 2023, amounts to an additional $2965.28, which I award. I have ordered that the bond centre is to release the bond to the landlord.

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. Photos taken on re-entry show the property in a very untidy state: a. Windowsills, light fittings, vinyl, and carpet were all in a grubby state, with marking and stains throughout; b. the refrigerator was left full of perishable food; c. kitchen cabinets were stained and untidy; d. walls and ceilings were marked and stained, and wallpaper damaged; e. the bathroom fittings and floor were marked and grubby; f. the lawns are overgrown with knee deep grass in areas; and g. a large amount of rubbish, drug paraphernalia, broken furniture, broken garden toys, chemicals, empty bottles and other items were left on and around the property.

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 four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) 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: a. The carpets, which were new at the start of the tenancy, were deeply stained and marked. An attempt was made to have been cleaned, however, the advice from the cleaner was that the staining involved bodily fluids which it soaks down to the floorboards and could not be removed. I have allowed for a 33% depreciation due to the age of the carpets. b. A number of windows were broken, and it appears the damage was intentional. c. A door had been smashed necessitating replacement. d. There were a number of holes in the walls due to being punched, or damaged with a sharp object. This damage appears to have been caused intentionally. e. Drapes were missing or damaged throughout the tenancy. I have allowed for 75% depreciation due to the age of the drapes which were new to the tenancy began. f. Light shades were damaged or missing throughout the tenancy.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

The landlord initially applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. However, due to delays in the hearing occurring, and a burglary during which a number of the tenants items were stolen from the premises, the landlord was forced to dispose the remaining items.

The landlord had attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact the tenant. It was not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods was below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord was correct to dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758438 — net $12,092.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,965.28	Rent arrears
Previous order application 4700207 dated 27/10/2023	$3,917.58	Previous order application 4700207 dated 27/10/2023
Carpet replacement, depreciated 33	$1,549.68	Carpet replacement, depreciated 33
Lock/key replacement	$417.90	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$1,449.20	Window repairs
Repairs: replace door/plaster holes	$690.00	Repairs: replace door/plaster holes
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$1,030.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$360.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: drapes, depreciated 75	$493.32	Replace furnishings: drapes, depreciated 75
Replace furnishings: light shades	$180.00	Replace furnishings: light shades
Net award	$12,092.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,092.96

Order

Cody Heywood must pay Avery Rental Maintenance Ltd As Agent For Catherina Van Resseghem $12,092.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. However, the tenant made no appearance.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 28 May 2016, with the lease involving the tenant and his former partner. At some stage prior to the events discussed below, the former partner left the tenancy. However, the bond centre was not advised of this and no change to bond or lease arrangements was made.
On 27 October 2023, Adjudicator Lash terminated the tenancy and made an award of arrears of $3917.58. The tenant refused to vacate the tenancy when an attempt was made by the landlord to repossess on 30 October 2023. The need for a bailiff to become involved, and further delays meant that the landlord was not able to re-enter until 4 December 2023.

How much is owed for rent?

Repossession occurred on 4 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove that rent for the period between 27 October 2023 and 4 December 2023, amounts to an additional $2965.28, which I award. I have ordered that the bond centre is to release the bond to the landlord.

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. Photos taken on re-entry show the property in a very untidy state: a. Windowsills, light fittings, vinyl, and carpet were all in a grubby state, with marking and stains throughout; b. the refrigerator was left full of perishable food; c. kitchen cabinets were stained and untidy; d. walls and ceilings were marked and stained, and wallpaper damaged; e. the bathroom fittings and floor were marked and grubby; f. the lawns are overgrown with knee deep grass in areas; and g. a large amount of rubbish, drug paraphernalia, broken furniture, broken garden toys, chemicals, empty bottles and other items were left on and around the property.
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 four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) 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: a. The carpets, which were new at the start of the tenancy, were deeply stained and marked. An attempt was made to have been cleaned, however, the advice from the cleaner was that the staining involved bodily fluids which it soaks down to the floorboards and could not be removed. I have allowed for a 33% depreciation due to the age of the carpets. b. A number of windows were broken, and it appears the damage was intentional. c. A door had been smashed necessitating replacement. d. There were a number of holes in the walls due to being punched, or damaged with a sharp object. This damage appears to have been caused intentionally. e. Drapes were missing or damaged throughout the tenancy. I have allowed for 75% depreciation due to the age of the drapes which were new to the tenancy began. f. Light shades were damaged or missing throughout the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
The landlord initially applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. However, due to delays in the hearing occurring, and a burglary during which a number of the tenants items were stolen from the premises, the landlord was forced to dispose the remaining items.
The landlord had attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact the tenant. It was not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods was below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord was correct to dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758438 — Property damage at 63 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758438 — Property damage at 63 York Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

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?

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions