What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4794717?

The tribunal order states: Clement Marcus Bridge must pay Maddox Limited $2,186.17 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4794717?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4794717 D…: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Labour: $1,271.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $312.67 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $88.11 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $103.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794717?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10507858-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4794717?

The tribunal order states: Clement Marcus Bridge must pay Maddox Limited $2,186.17 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4794717?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4794717 D…: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Labour: $1,271.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $312.67 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $88.11 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $103.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794717?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10507858-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

765 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4794717 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4794717 — net $2,186.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4794717 dated 10/04/2024	$140.00	Previous order application 4794717 dated 10/04/2024
Water rates January and February 2024	$103.95	Water rates January and February 2024
Repairs: Painting	$312.67	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Plastering	$88.11	Repairs: Plastering
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Labour	$1,271.00	Repairs: Labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,186.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,186.17

The landlord attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend. I am satisfied the respondent was adequately served notice of the hearing and on that basis the hearing was conducted in his absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 February 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is 103.95.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord gave viva voce evidence that during the tenancy that the tenant had a pet dog, and that at the end of the two years and five months of the tenancy, the carpets were in need of a professional clean to get them to a reasonable standard of cleanliness. The landlord produced photographs and an invoice for $250.00 in support of this claim.

The landlord had to replace some lightbulbs. Receipts were produced in support.

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.

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 landlord produced photographs which show gouges and some holes in the plasterboard walls and to the skirting boards. The walls needed to be repaired with plaster and then repainted.

The landlord also claims the tenant placed and left numerous amounts of red sticky tape on the walls, and sprayed red paint onto the concrete which the landlord subsequently had to clean and repair. The landlord produced photographs and receipts in support.

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. By this, I am referring to the repainting of several rooms in the house, which can be expected to be done periodically at a landlord’s expense.

The landlord is claiming cost for attending at the Tribunal. Costs applications are covered under section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. The landlord’s application is not consistent with that provision and the claim is not awarded.

Because Maddox Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4794717 — net $2,186.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4794717 dated 10/04/2024	$140.00	Previous order application 4794717 dated 10/04/2024
Water rates January and February 2024	$103.95	Water rates January and February 2024
Repairs: Painting	$312.67	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Plastering	$88.11	Repairs: Plastering
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Labour	$1,271.00	Repairs: Labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,186.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,186.17

Order

Clement Marcus Bridge must pay Maddox Limited $2,186.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend. I am satisfied the respondent was adequately served notice of the hearing and on that basis the hearing was conducted in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 February 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is 103.95.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord gave viva voce evidence that during the tenancy that the tenant had a pet dog, and that at the end of the two years and five months of the tenancy, the carpets were in need of a professional clean to get them to a reasonable standard of cleanliness. The landlord produced photographs and an invoice for $250.00 in support of this claim.
The landlord had to replace some lightbulbs. Receipts were produced in support.
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.
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 landlord produced photographs which show gouges and some holes in the plasterboard walls and to the skirting boards. The walls needed to be repaired with plaster and then repainted.
The landlord also claims the tenant placed and left numerous amounts of red sticky tape on the walls, and sprayed red paint onto the concrete which the landlord subsequently had to clean and repair. The landlord produced photographs and receipts in support.
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. By this, I am referring to the repainting of several rooms in the house, which can be expected to be done periodically at a landlord’s expense.
The landlord is claiming cost for attending at the Tribunal. Costs applications are covered under section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. The landlord’s application is not consistent with that provision and the claim is not awarded.
Because Maddox Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4794717 — Property damage at 765 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4794717 — Property damage at 765 Swanson Road, Swanson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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