What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4760598 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4760598?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760598?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9918447-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4760598 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4760598?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760598?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9918447-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760598 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $1,658.14 from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,658.14 from the bond of $1,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of $221.86 from the bond of $1,880.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was initially scheduled to be in-person but was then changed to a phone hearing, due to technical issues at the court. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing by teleconference on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s] also attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 3 November 2023.

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 at the start of the tenancy the tenants received 2 keys, only 1 of which was returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not dispute this. Therefore, as the tenant did not return all the keys, the locks had to be changed. The landlord claimed $203.55 for changing the locks. I find this to be a reasonable cost for changing the locks and award the landlord $203.55 for changing the locks.
The landlord said the tenants left 2 carpet stains, one in the lounge and one in the bedroom, and provided photographs of them. The landlord claimed $140.00 of an invoice for $280.00 for carpet cleaning and treatment of carpet stains, acknowledging the tenants had made an effort to clean the place upon their exit. The tenants did not dispute the carpet stains. I find there were 2 carpet stains and that $140.00 is a reasonable cost to treat these 2 carpet stains. As such, I award the landlord $140.00 for the treatment of the 2 carpet stains.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 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:
The landlord claimed the tenants had damaged 2 mailboxes during the tenancy. [Tenant 1] denied damaging the mailboxes himself but said it was somebody visiting them who had damaged them. Tenants are responsible for the actions of those on the tenancy premises, as acknowledged by the tenants. I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B does not apply here. The total cost of replacing the mailboxes was $345.00, which I find to be a reasonable cost to replace the mailboxes.
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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord said the mailboxes were at least 5 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life span of a mailbox in a rental property is 15 years. As such, I deduct the $345.00 cost I find reasonable to replace the mailboxes, by 33% for depreciation to an award of $231.15 to replace the mailboxes.
The landlord said the tenants broke the bathroom blinds, which cost $100.00 to replace. The tenants said they left the window open, the blinds hooked on and broke but it still was functional. I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. Given I find it to be careless damage, the tenants are liable for the replacement cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA. The insurance excess, as noted in the Tenancy Agreement was $550.00. Weekly rent was $470.00.
There was no evidence provided as to the age of the bathroom blinds, apart from photographs. From the photographs the bathroom blinds appear to be at least 3 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of blinds in a rental property to be around 8 years. As such, I deduct the $100.00 cost I find to be reasonable by 37% for depreciation to an award of $63.00 to replace the bathroom blinds. This does not exceed the cap in s.49B RTA, and is less than the insurance excess, so I award $63.00 to the landlord to replace the bathroom blinds.
The landlord said the tenants had removed 2 kitchen cupboards from underneath the kitchen sink and provided photographs of this area at the start and end of the tenancy. The tenants said these cupboards were not working properly and they had asked the landlord to fix them. The tenants said the landlord did not fix them and so they removed these cupboards. The landlord said efforts were made to fix the cupboards but on one occasion one of the tenants was in hospital and then the tradesperson involved could not locate at least one of these cupboards to do the job. The landlord said one cupboard cover was missing from the property and the other kitchen cupboard cover was damaged by the tenants. The landlord said they had told the tenants not to undertake their own repairs at the property, but they went ahead and did so anyway. Given the removal of the kitchen cupboard covers by the tenants, that one disappeared from the property and the other was damaged, I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of replacing the kitchen cupboards and 2 door handles was $500.00, which did not include any painting. I find this to be a reasonable cost to replace the kitchen cupboards and replace two door handles on the cupboards, given part of this had to be custom made by the joiner. There was no evidence provided about the age of the kitchen cupboards but from the photographs provided, they appear to be at least 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life span of kitchen cabinetry to be around 50 years. As such, I deduct the $500.00 cost that I find to be reasonable to replace the kitchen cupboards, by 20% for depreciation to an award of $400.00 to replace the kitchen cupboards and 2 door handles.
The landlord said the tenants drilled 2 holes in the walls, exterior and interior, in the bathroom and bedroom, to install security cameras, which they did not consent to. The tenants said one of them was assaulted in a home invasion and they wanted security cameras to protect themselves. They felt the installation of the security cameras was justified for this. The landlord said the tenants drilled through from the inside to the outside of the house, creating a draft in the house. They provided photographs of these holes, in which you could see the outside from the interior of the house. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s. 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of filling the holes and repairing the exterior of the house from the holes claimed by the landlord was $400.00, which did not include any painting. I find this to be a reasonable cost for filling the holes and repairing the exterior where the holes were. Painting was not claimed by the landlord, only the cost of filling the holes and repairing the exterior where the holes were. As such, I do not depreciate the repair cost here and award the landlord $400.00 for this repair.
The landlord said they had to replace the cladding above the power meter in the carport due to damage from the security cameras installed by the tenants and providing photographs of this damage. The landlord further claimed for the repair of a broken trellis at the property, also providing photographs of this at the start and end of the tenancy. The tenants acknowledged breaking the trellis and also installing the security cameras. Given the evidence, I find this damage to the cladding and to the trellis to be intentional on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of replacing the cladding and repairing the trellis claimed was $200.00, which I find to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. The landlord said the trellis was just repaired, not replaced. I note only one small part of the cladding was replaced to repair the damage from the tenants’ security cameras. Thus, I do not depreciate the cost of repair claimed by the landlord for repairing the trellis and replacing a small part of the cladding, and award the landlord $200.00 for these repairs.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond
The landlord has claimed the full amount of the bond of $1,880.00. Given the award to the landlord is $1,658.14, I award $1,658.14 of the bond to be immediately paid to the landlord by the Bond Centre, and the remaining balance of $221.86 is to be paid to the tenants. Filing Fee
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants’ evidence is that they are currently homeless, with a young child, and have undergone past difficulties. The landlord’s evidence was the tenants made an effort to clean the property before leaving, despite the items damaged. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the interests of the tenants here outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760598 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760598 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions