What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778943 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenants] must pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Amy & Jordon Lloyd

How much money was awarded in case 4778943?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Tip fee for removal o…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4778943 D…: $2,253.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778943?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10540528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778943 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenants] must pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Amy & Jordon Lloyd

How much money was awarded in case 4778943?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Tip fee for removal o…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4778943 D…: $2,253.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778943?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10540528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778943 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778943 — net $2,093.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4778943 dated 09/04/2024	$2,253.63		Previous order application 4778943 dated 09/04/2024
Compensation: (reversal of hole repair compensation		$100.00	(reversal of hole repair compensation
Compensation: (Tip fee for removal of outdoor furniture		$60.00	(Tip fee for removal of outdoor furniture
Total award	$2,253.63	$160.00
Net award	$2,093.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,093.63

Order

[The tenants] must pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Amy & Jordon Lloyd $2,093.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: (“the debt”).
This order incorporates the Tribunal Orders made on 27 February 2024 and 9 April 2024 under application 4778943 for enforcement purposes. None of the monies awarded in the 27 February 2024 or the 9 April 2024 Orders have been paid to the landlord.
[The tenants] must repay the debt as follows: a. By 13 weekly payments of $150.00 each Friday, commencing on Friday 12 July 2024 and ending on Friday 4 October 2024; and b. A final payment of $143.63, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Friday 11 October 2024; and
If [the tenants] fail to pay the debt repayments set out in paragraph [4] above within 2 working days of the due dates, the full amount of the remaining debt will fall due immediately.
The debt repayments must be made to the landlord’s bank account 01-0121- 0068618-00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for a rehearing of the cleaning and wall repairs costs awarded in the 9 April 2024 Order. The rehearing was granted, and I have reheard the evidence that relates to the cleaning and wall repair costs awarded by Adjudicator Lash.

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.
In the Tribunal Order dated 9 April 2024 Adjudicator Lash, after considering all the evidence presented to her from both parties, awarded the landlord a contribution of $50.00 towards the cleaning costs borne by it at the end of the tenancy. The reasons for this award are set out in the 9 April 2024 Orde in paragraphs [4] to [14]. I agree with Adjudicator Lash’s summary of the evidence presented to her, and again by me, and uphold her findings and original award of $50.00 towards the cleaning costs and the dismissal of the remainder of the landlord’s cleaning cost claim.
During the rehearing the tenants gave evidence that they had been put in a position where they had to pay to dispose of old outdoor furniture that was left on the deck at the commencement of their tenancy. They say they tried to get the prior property manager to get it removed, but he never responded to their calls and voice messages. The tenants say they incurred a tip fee of $60.00 for the disposal of the outdoor furniture. The tenant’s entry photos show the outdoor furniture is in bad condition and no longer fit for purpose. I accept they removed it at their cost as it was a hazard. I award the tenants compensation of $60.00 to reimburse them for the tip fee they had to pay because the prior property manager did nothing to address this hazard when it was raised with him repeatedly.

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 only damage I was asked to consider today was with respect to the holes in the walls in the lounge, two bedrooms and hallway.
The tenants provided some photographs showing holes present in the wall at the commencement of the tenancy and screws and old TV wall brackets in the lounge and master bedroom. I therefore accept that there were some holes in the walls from the beginning. The tenants confirmed they did remove a shelf and TV bracket without landlord permission and did not reinstate them at the end of the tenancy. They say they removed the shelf above the hot water cupboard in the lounge was loose and dangerous when their tenancy commenced as they had not had any of their communications with the prior property manager returned nor any action taken in relation to a host of issues, they raised with him.
They say the prior property manager was aware they had to take the old TV bracket down as they could not put their own TV over the old bracket and the full bracket was not available for them to use and he did not object to this. Further, the male tenant is a builder and he plastered the holes left from the removal of the bracket and some other holes that were present when the tenancy commenced.
The photographs of the holes and scraps the current property manager produced are close up and the entry inspection photographs are small and taken at a longer distance. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the holes and the scraps in the close up exit inspection photographs were not present to some degree at the commencement of the tenancy.
I also agree with Adjudicator Lash that it is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
For the reasons outlined in paragraphs [13] to [16] I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $258.75 for repairs to the holes in the walls.
I also note that the evidence the tenant gave today supports a view that the tenants had grounds to have made a cross application for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy and that the property was not maintained to a reasonable standard. I have not been able to take this into consideration today as the tenants have not made a cross application, but this evidence suggests to me that the property was far from pristine as far as the state of the walls and the cleanliness of the property goes at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they left the premise in a better state than they received it. I have awarded a $50.00 contribution to the cleaning costs sought by the landlord solely because at the original hearing on 9 April 2024, the tenants accepted responsibility for a pink mark on the wall. Name suppression
The tenants seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their defence to this application. I do not consider publication of their names and identifying details are in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778943 — net $2,093.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4778943 dated 09/04/2024	$2,253.63		Previous order application 4778943 dated 09/04/2024
Compensation: (reversal of hole repair compensation		$100.00	(reversal of hole repair compensation
Compensation: (Tip fee for removal of outdoor furniture		$60.00	(Tip fee for removal of outdoor furniture
Total award	$2,253.63	$160.00
Net award	$2,093.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,093.63

Order

[The tenants] must pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Amy & Jordon Lloyd $2,093.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: (“the debt”).
This order incorporates the Tribunal Orders made on 27 February 2024 and 9 April 2024 under application 4778943 for enforcement purposes. None of the monies awarded in the 27 February 2024 or the 9 April 2024 Orders have been paid to the landlord.
[The tenants] must repay the debt as follows: a. By 13 weekly payments of $150.00 each Friday, commencing on Friday 12 July 2024 and ending on Friday 4 October 2024; and b. A final payment of $143.63, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Friday 11 October 2024; and
If [the tenants] fail to pay the debt repayments set out in paragraph [4] above within 2 working days of the due dates, the full amount of the remaining debt will fall due immediately.
The debt repayments must be made to the landlord’s bank account 01-0121- 0068618-00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for a rehearing of the cleaning and wall repairs costs awarded in the 9 April 2024 Order. The rehearing was granted, and I have reheard the evidence that relates to the cleaning and wall repair costs awarded by Adjudicator Lash.

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.
In the Tribunal Order dated 9 April 2024 Adjudicator Lash, after considering all the evidence presented to her from both parties, awarded the landlord a contribution of $50.00 towards the cleaning costs borne by it at the end of the tenancy. The reasons for this award are set out in the 9 April 2024 Orde in paragraphs [4] to [14]. I agree with Adjudicator Lash’s summary of the evidence presented to her, and again by me, and uphold her findings and original award of $50.00 towards the cleaning costs and the dismissal of the remainder of the landlord’s cleaning cost claim.
During the rehearing the tenants gave evidence that they had been put in a position where they had to pay to dispose of old outdoor furniture that was left on the deck at the commencement of their tenancy. They say they tried to get the prior property manager to get it removed, but he never responded to their calls and voice messages. The tenants say they incurred a tip fee of $60.00 for the disposal of the outdoor furniture. The tenant’s entry photos show the outdoor furniture is in bad condition and no longer fit for purpose. I accept they removed it at their cost as it was a hazard. I award the tenants compensation of $60.00 to reimburse them for the tip fee they had to pay because the prior property manager did nothing to address this hazard when it was raised with him repeatedly.

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 only damage I was asked to consider today was with respect to the holes in the walls in the lounge, two bedrooms and hallway.
The tenants provided some photographs showing holes present in the wall at the commencement of the tenancy and screws and old TV wall brackets in the lounge and master bedroom. I therefore accept that there were some holes in the walls from the beginning. The tenants confirmed they did remove a shelf and TV bracket without landlord permission and did not reinstate them at the end of the tenancy. They say they removed the shelf above the hot water cupboard in the lounge was loose and dangerous when their tenancy commenced as they had not had any of their communications with the prior property manager returned nor any action taken in relation to a host of issues, they raised with him.
They say the prior property manager was aware they had to take the old TV bracket down as they could not put their own TV over the old bracket and the full bracket was not available for them to use and he did not object to this. Further, the male tenant is a builder and he plastered the holes left from the removal of the bracket and some other holes that were present when the tenancy commenced.
The photographs of the holes and scraps the current property manager produced are close up and the entry inspection photographs are small and taken at a longer distance. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the holes and the scraps in the close up exit inspection photographs were not present to some degree at the commencement of the tenancy.
I also agree with Adjudicator Lash that it is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
For the reasons outlined in paragraphs [13] to [16] I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $258.75 for repairs to the holes in the walls.
I also note that the evidence the tenant gave today supports a view that the tenants had grounds to have made a cross application for the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy and that the property was not maintained to a reasonable standard. I have not been able to take this into consideration today as the tenants have not made a cross application, but this evidence suggests to me that the property was far from pristine as far as the state of the walls and the cleanliness of the property goes at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they left the premise in a better state than they received it. I have awarded a $50.00 contribution to the cleaning costs sought by the landlord solely because at the original hearing on 9 April 2024, the tenants accepted responsibility for a pink mark on the wall. Name suppression
The tenants seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their defence to this application. I do not consider publication of their names and identifying details are in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778943 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778943 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions