What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774765 about?

The tribunal order states: Roxanne Schreurs must pay [The landlord/s] $9,697.03 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4774765?

Cleaning: $705.06 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Floorboards: $563.23 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4663910 D…: $4,500.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $61.01 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,541.00 awarded to landlord; Window Catches: $40.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $765.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774765?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774765?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10590544-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774765 about?

The tribunal order states: Roxanne Schreurs must pay [The landlord/s] $9,697.03 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4774765?

Cleaning: $705.06 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Floorboards: $563.23 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4663910 D…: $4,500.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $61.01 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,541.00 awarded to landlord; Window Catches: $40.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $765.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774765?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774765?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10590544-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774765 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774765 — net $9,697.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4663910 dated 20/12/2023	$4,500.44	Previous order application 4663910 dated 20/12/2023
Cleaning	$705.06	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$765.60	Rubbish removal
Key replacement	$61.01	Key replacement
Repairs: carpet	$500.00	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: walls	$1,541.00	Repairs: walls
Floorboards	$563.23	Floorboards
Repairs: ranch slider	$1,000.00	Repairs: ranch slider
Repairs: window catches	$40.25	Repairs: window catches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,697.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,697.03

[The landlord] and the property manager [Ms S] attended the hearing in person. The tenant appeared by phone. The day before the hearing the tenant applied for an adjournment because she no longer lives locally and did not have any transport. The adjournment was declined because the tenant had had over 6 weeks’ notice of the hearing and so had had a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to attend. In addition, at an earlier case conference directions had been made for the filing and serving of documents. The landlords complied with those directions. No reply had been filed by the tenant. The tenant was allowed to attend the hearing by phone.

The landlord compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy began on 23 January 2021 and ended on 3 November 2023. The property managers took over management of the tenancy after this tenancy ended, but they were allowed to appear as representatives of 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 agreed that she did not clean the property when she left and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photographs showing that house was in a very poor state. It appeared no cleaning at all had been done for some time and there was a considerable amount of abandoned property, rubbish and debris.

The landlord submitted invoices for $265 for rubbish disposal and $205.06 for cleaning products. They also said that the owners spent considerable hours at the property. Judging by the photographs provided, the clean-up required would have taken many hours. The tenant agreed with me that 40 hours at $25.00 an hour was reasonable and so I order $1000 for the landlord’s time in cleaning and rubbish removal. Splitting that amount over the two items, that is $500 each. I therefore order $765 for rubbish removal and $705.06 for cleaning.

The landlord claims $61.01 for replacement keys for the front door. The tenant said that there was only ever one key for the back door and she left that, which the landlord accepted. The side door had a combination lock and the ranch slider did not have a key on the outside.

I find it unlikely that the landlord did not provide a full set of keys at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement refers to the fact that the combination lock was to be replaced (although it was not), but makes no mention of missing keys. I find it more likely than not that the tenant mislaid the other keys. I order $61.01 for replacement 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.

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: a. Stains and burns to carpet b. Damage to hard flooring in bathroom, kitchen c. Holes in walls d. Damage to ranch slider. e. Window catches missing f. Curtains missing Carpet

The landlord provided photos showing a filthy carpet including stains and burnmarks. Although the tenant denied smoking in the property, I accept that there were stains and it needed to be replaced. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord has had the carpet replaced in 2 bedrooms, the dining room and lounge at a cost of $3,990.00.

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.

According to the Inland Revenue depreciation guides, a carpet in a rental property has life of 8 years. The landlords bought the property in 2012 and so at the start of the tenancy in 2021, the carpet was already 8 years old.

However, although the book value of the carpet was zero, it does not mean that the carpet had no value at all. It may well have lasted a few more years, if the tenant had not caused damage to it. I have decided that the landlord should be compensated and that $500 is appropriate in this case. Vinyl and floor boards

The hard flooring is more difficult to assess. There were black and white vinyl squares throughout the bathroom, kitchen, hall and laundry. There are no photos of the vinyl at the start of the tenancy. The photos at the end of the tenancy are before any cleaning had been done. It is evident that the parts of the flooring have broken away. It is not evident how that occurred.

The landlord also submitted invoices and receipts for replacement floor boards in the bathroom and hallway.

The landlord said that the tenant had a dog that damaged the flooring. The tenant denied that she had a dog at the property but occasionally when her brother stayed, he brought his dog. She also said that the damage to the flooring was as a result of a leaky shower, but the landlord denied knowledge of a leaky shower.

The tenant said that any damage in the hallway was caused by a leak under the hallway door. She had let the landlord know about it. A flap had been placed on the door, but it kept catching and she removed it.

The onus is on the landlord to show that the damage to the vinyl was more than fair wear and tear. By the end of the tenancy the floor covering was at least 11 years old. Based on the photos produced, I am not satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused by the careless or intentional actions of the tenant, as opposed to fair wear and tear over some years. This claim is dismissed.

However, the replacement of the floorboards must be covered by the tenant. She produced no evidence to show that she had notified the landlord about any issue with possible water damage caused by the shower or that she let the landlord know that the door flap had not been a satisfactory solution. Under section 40(1)(d) a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. She was aware of possible ongoing damage but took no action. Accordingly I find that she must compensate the landlords $563.23 for replacement floorboards. Holes in walls

The photos showed several holes in the walls throughout the house. I find that these are not fair wear and tear but are as a result of careless or intentional actions of the tenant or her guests.

The landlord submitted an invoice for repair and painting for a total of $1,541.00 which is the amount ordered. Ranch slider

The landlord says that the ranch slider door was damaged and needed to be replaced because the frame was bent and it would no longer move on the runners.

The tenant accepts that the window was broken but says that the door had been replaced during the tenancy and it never ran smoothly.

The landlord produced an invoice showing some repairs and maintenance that had been done on the door in 2022.

There was no evidence that the tenant alerted any ongoing issues with the door to the landlord. Given the lower window was broken, I find it more likely that the door was damaged due to the actions of the tenant or people at the premises with her consent.

The landlord could not find a ranch slider that fits the cavity and so has replaced it with French Doors totalling $1,922.80.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord has had the use of the existing ranch slider for some years. I have therefore decided that $1,000 is reasonable compensation for the replacement door. Window catches

The landlord said that more than 5 window latches were missing. The tenant had no explanation. I find that 5 missing latches (or more) amounts to more than fair wear and tear. The missing latches are more than likely as a result of careless or intentional conduct on the part of the tenant or people at the premises with her permission. I order the replacement cost of $40.25. Curtains

The landlord has claimed replacement curtains and tracks to the value of $102.38. The tenant says that the curtains did not belong to the landlord; she says her mother provided them.

The onus is on the landlord to prove that they provided curtains. There are no photos of the curtains in place at the start of the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and grant name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774765 — net $9,697.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4663910 dated 20/12/2023	$4,500.44	Previous order application 4663910 dated 20/12/2023
Cleaning	$705.06	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$765.60	Rubbish removal
Key replacement	$61.01	Key replacement
Repairs: carpet	$500.00	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: walls	$1,541.00	Repairs: walls
Floorboards	$563.23	Floorboards
Repairs: ranch slider	$1,000.00	Repairs: ranch slider
Repairs: window catches	$40.25	Repairs: window catches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,697.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,697.03