What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774384?

The tribunal order states: Shania Sturmey must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4774384?

Cleaning: $492.84 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,980.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $27.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $792.18 awarded to tenant; Back Door Lock: $107.00 awarded to landlord; Coat Hook: $20.98 awarded to landlord; Fire Place: $103.00 awarded to landlord; missing catch covers, sliding door r…: $911.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,001.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Cabinet: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Door Stopper: $10.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Panel Heater: $247.33 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Security Gate: $15.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774384?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10137808-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774384?

The tribunal order states: Shania Sturmey must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4774384?

Cleaning: $492.84 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,980.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $27.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $792.18 awarded to tenant; Back Door Lock: $107.00 awarded to landlord; Coat Hook: $20.98 awarded to landlord; Fire Place: $103.00 awarded to landlord; missing catch covers, sliding door r…: $911.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,001.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Cabinet: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Door Stopper: $10.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Panel Heater: $247.33 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Security Gate: $15.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774384?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774384?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10137808-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Manor Drive, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774384 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774384 — net $2,554.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$492.84		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: wall repairs in most rooms and patch painting	$2,001.00		Repairs: wall repairs in most rooms and patch painting
Repairs: back door lock	$107.00		Repairs: back door lock
Repairs: missing catch covers, sliding door rollers	$911.00		Repairs: missing catch covers, sliding door rollers
Repairs: coat hook	$20.98		Repairs: coat hook
Repairs: fire place	$103.00		Repairs: fire place
Replace furnishings: door stopper	$10.25		Replace furnishings: door stopper
Replace furnishings: panel heater	$247.33		Replace furnishings: panel heater
Light bulbs	$27.74		Light bulbs
Replace furnishings: security gate	$15.00		Replace furnishings: security gate
Replace furnishings: cabinet	$50.00		Replace furnishings: cabinet
Compensation 3 weeks	$1,980.00		Compensation 3 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$792.18	Rent credit
Total award	$5,986.58	$792.18
Net award	$2,554.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,554.40

Shania Sturmey must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Angeline Mei Yen And Foo Ian-Dominic Dempster $2,554.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (5618282-002) to Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Angeline Mei Yen And Foo Ian-Dominic Dempster immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant however as she had been served with the notice of hearing and notified of it by her landlord, the hearing was conducted in her 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. Ms Sturmey had a rent credit that has been applied to the order.

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 landlord has established that the tenant did not leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy, replace used lightbulbs, had removed a cabinet, a safety gate, a door stopper in the bedroom downstairs, the draught stoppers on 2 doors, the fireplace vent handle and door handle and 10 window catch covers.

The amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable. The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that all missing items were questioned with Ms Sturmey and she was given the opportunity to return them, but did not. Ms Sturmey has approved transfer of the bond to the landlord by signing the bond form.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for the following damage: i. Holes in many walls which needed to be repaired and patch painted; ii. Broken rollers on the master bedroom sliding door; iii. Broken corner kitchen cupboard; iv. Front door security chain; v. Two cracked toilet seats; vi. Broken back door lock; and vii. Cracked panel heater.

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. The landlord’s insurance has declined payment for any of these costs. The weekly rent was $660.

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.

Having assessed the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the damage caused was more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by careless actions. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the repairs which are considered reasonable in light of the work required. The landlord had provided Ms Sturmey the opportunity to repair the work herself or have her own contractors do so, however she did not avail of this opportunity.

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. In this respect I have reduced the claims for the panel heater, cabinet and side gate to account for their expected life spans according to current depreciation guidelines.

Should compensation be granted?

The landlord also seeks compensation in the form of three weeks rent based on the fact that the house took six weeks to repair given the extent of damage. It was therefore unable to be rented for that period. The landlord is only seeking three weeks to take into account their usual marketing period.

Section 77(2)(n) RTA empowers the Tribunal to make an award for general damages where a tenant or landlord breaches the provisions of the RTA. The normal rules for damages apply and the landlord must prove breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.

I consider that the landlord has established this loss and that such a loss was foreseeable given how the house was left. I find the claim reasonable and accordingly make the order as sought. Filing fee

Because Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Angeline Mei Yen And Foo Ian-Dominic Dempster has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774384 — net $2,554.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$492.84		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: wall repairs in most rooms and patch painting	$2,001.00		Repairs: wall repairs in most rooms and patch painting
Repairs: back door lock	$107.00		Repairs: back door lock
Repairs: missing catch covers, sliding door rollers	$911.00		Repairs: missing catch covers, sliding door rollers
Repairs: coat hook	$20.98		Repairs: coat hook
Repairs: fire place	$103.00		Repairs: fire place
Replace furnishings: door stopper	$10.25		Replace furnishings: door stopper
Replace furnishings: panel heater	$247.33		Replace furnishings: panel heater
Light bulbs	$27.74		Light bulbs
Replace furnishings: security gate	$15.00		Replace furnishings: security gate
Replace furnishings: cabinet	$50.00		Replace furnishings: cabinet
Compensation 3 weeks	$1,980.00		Compensation 3 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$792.18	Rent credit
Total award	$5,986.58	$792.18
Net award	$2,554.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,554.40

Order

Shania Sturmey must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Angeline Mei Yen And Foo Ian-Dominic Dempster $2,554.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (5618282-002) to Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Angeline Mei Yen And Foo Ian-Dominic Dempster immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant however as she had been served with the notice of hearing and notified of it by her landlord, the hearing was conducted in her 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. Ms Sturmey had a rent credit that has been applied to the order.

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 landlord has established that the tenant did not leave the carpets reasonably clean and tidy, replace used lightbulbs, had removed a cabinet, a safety gate, a door stopper in the bedroom downstairs, the draught stoppers on 2 doors, the fireplace vent handle and door handle and 10 window catch covers.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable. The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that all missing items were questioned with Ms Sturmey and she was given the opportunity to return them, but did not. Ms Sturmey has approved transfer of the bond to the landlord by signing the bond form.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for the following damage: i. Holes in many walls which needed to be repaired and patch painted; ii. Broken rollers on the master bedroom sliding door; iii. Broken corner kitchen cupboard; iv. Front door security chain; v. Two cracked toilet seats; vi. Broken back door lock; and vii. Cracked panel heater.
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. The landlord’s insurance has declined payment for any of these costs. The weekly rent was $660.
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.
Having assessed the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the damage caused was more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by careless actions. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the repairs which are considered reasonable in light of the work required. The landlord had provided Ms Sturmey the opportunity to repair the work herself or have her own contractors do so, however she did not avail of this opportunity.
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. In this respect I have reduced the claims for the panel heater, cabinet and side gate to account for their expected life spans according to current depreciation guidelines.

Should compensation be granted?

The landlord also seeks compensation in the form of three weeks rent based on the fact that the house took six weeks to repair given the extent of damage. It was therefore unable to be rented for that period. The landlord is only seeking three weeks to take into account their usual marketing period.
Section 77(2)(n) RTA empowers the Tribunal to make an award for general damages where a tenant or landlord breaches the provisions of the RTA. The normal rules for damages apply and the landlord must prove breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
I consider that the landlord has established this loss and that such a loss was foreseeable given how the house was left. I find the claim reasonable and accordingly make the order as sought. Filing fee
Because Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Angeline Mei Yen And Foo Ian-Dominic Dempster has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774384 — Property damage at 14 Manor Drive, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774384 — Property damage at 14 Manor Drive, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

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?

Should compensation be granted?

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?

Should compensation be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions