What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4801041 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Trustees of Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $8,956.39

How much money was awarded in case 4801041?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing Work: $4,055.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,755.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801041?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10129989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4801041 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Trustees of Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $8,956.39

How much money was awarded in case 4801041?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Plumbing Work: $4,055.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,755.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801041?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10129989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 306 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4801041 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4801041 — net $8,956.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$724.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,755.88	Rubbish removal
Heat pump	$2,300.00	Heat pump
Plumbing work	$4,055.57	Plumbing work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,956.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,956.39

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Trustees of Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $8,956.39 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the oven is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Timpson attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Allan of counsel attended representing the tenant. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy started on 19 September 2023 and ended on 21 December 2023. The tenant was taken into custody on 9 December and remains in custody. The tenancy was ended by consent.
Housing First was involved in placing the tenant with the landlord and they were also involved at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that they were meant to remove his belongings of value from the premises before the tenancy ended. He was unhappy that they had not done so although Ms Timpson said that Housing First had removed some of the tenant’s belongings and they were being kept in storage.
The tenant said that after he was taken into custody, the premises were secured by the Police.
Ms Timpson said that the landlord had gone to the premises on 21 or 22 December and changed the locks and secured the premises including the garage.
Mr Allan said that after the tenant was taken into custody, he had no access or control over the premises. The tenant’s case was that most of the damage to the premises occurred after that time and was the result of vandals or burglars.
The tenant said that he was told by Housing First that someone had broken into the premises after the weekend of 9/10 December and that some of his belongings were taken. Law
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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. Claims Cleaning and Carpet Cleaning
Photographs of the premises taken on 27 December show a very substantial amount of rubbish inside and outside the house of the premises. The tenant accepted that and said that he was not in a good state towards the end of the tenancy and that he was “heavily in addiction”. He admitted that the premises were dirty.
It is difficult to assess the standard of cleanliness of the premises from the photographs because the surfaces are virtually completely covered with the tenant’s belongings and rubbish. It is reasonable to assume that once the premises had been cleared, that the premises needed a substantial amount of cleaning to put them into a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I am satisfied therefore that the cost of cleaning and carpet cleaning claimed by the landlord, and supported by invoices, is reasonable and I have awarded it in full. Rubbish Removal
I have referred to the substantial amount of rubbish at the premises. The tenant said that other people had added to the rubbish after he was taken into custody. He also said that there was valuable scrap metal there that he was sorting out and that it could have been separated and sold. He suggested that the rubbish removers would have done that. He suggested that there were people who would have a motive to dump rubbish there after they learned he was in custody.
I am not persuaded that there was scrap metal of saleable value left at the premises. There may have been some value if the tenant had sorted it and taken it to a scrap metal dealer, but the landlord was not under any obligation to do that. The tenant arranged with Housing First to remove anything of value from the premises and if they failed to do so, that it something that he would have to take up with them, not the landlord.
Ms Timpson said that she had seen the premises a month earlier and the situation was very similar to the way it was found on 27 December.
I think it is unlikely that people dumped rubbish at the premises after the tenant was taken into custody. There was no evidence to corroborate the tenant’s suggestion and the inside of the premises mirrored the state of the outside which suggests that the tenant’s lifestyle was chaotic. Given his admission about his state towards the end of the tenancy, he may not have fully appreciated the situation.
I am satisfied that the photographs show the rubbish left at the premises by the tenant. The costs claimed, supported by invoices, are reasonable and I have awarded them in full. Heat Pump
The heat pump wall unit was missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy. Where it had been installed was covered by a picture. The copper piping connecting the outside unit to the inside unit had been removed and the unit was irreparable.
The heat pump was new at the start of the tenancy and the landlord claims the cost of a new replacement.
The tenant said that he didn’t remove the heat pump and that someone must have broken into the premises and removed it. He said that the picture, which had been sitting on the floor, had some significance to him which would have been known by the person who put it on the wall. He declined to explain to me what the significance of the picture was.
There is no evidence that anyone broke into the premises. The tenant said that the Police were involved and so there should be a Police report. Ms Timpson said that she reported the heat pump stolen to the Police but apart from that, there was no evidence of any Police report. Ms Timpson also said that there was no sign of a break in at the premises.
It is likely that the heat pump was removed from the premises during the tenancy before the tenant was taken into custody and that the painting was put on the wall to conceal the fact. It is unlikely that a burglar would hang a picture on the wall after stealing the heat pump. It would also be unusual for someone to break into a house to steel a heat pump unit.
I find therefore that the tenant has not disproved liability for the loss and damage to the heat pump and I have awarded the cost of replacing it in full. Plumbing Work
At the end of the tenancy the landlord found that the copper waste pipes from the bathroom and kitchen of the premises had been removed. That involved breaking out the concrete where the pipes penetrated the concrete ring foundation to discharge into the drain. Most of the work to remove them had to be done inside the house.
The landlord has replaced the pipes with PVC pipes which have been run to the outside directly from the bathroom and kitchen and then run around the outside of the house to the drain. There is little room under the floor of the house to install the pipes there.
The landlord produced an invoice in the sum of $4,655.57 for plumbing work. The invoice covers the replacement pipes but includes some replacement downpipes and water blasting that the landlord does not claim from the tenant. After adding a labour charge to the materials charge relating to that work, there needs to a deduction of $500 from the invoice leaving a claim for $4,055.57.
The tenant denied any responsibility for removing the pipes. He said that someone must have broken into the house and removed them. He said that he knows where he can obtain disused and unwanted copper and so he had no need to remove the pipes for the purpose of selling them. He said that the value of the pipes would be minimal.
I find that the tenant has not disproved responsibility for the missing pipes. I note that if the pipes had little value why would anyone want to remove them? His explanation that someone has removed them to make life more difficult for him is unconvincing. I also note that that the tenant said that he was sorting out scrap metal outside the house that would have little value. I note as well that the tenant’s living conditions indicate a chaotic lifestyle and the fact that he suffered from an addiction could result in him taking action that cannot easily be rationally explained.
I have therefore awarded the sum $4,055.57 for the damage to the loss of the pipework. Stove
The evidence was that the electrical cable for the oven was cut during the tenancy. The tenant denied doing it, but I find that he did not disprove liability for it.
The oven was replaced because it was found not to be electrically safe. There was no evidence that the unsafeness of the oven was the result of anything done by the tenant. It did not relate to the damage to the cable which could have been replaced. There was no evidence of any other significant damage to the oven. The claim is therefore dismissed. Filing Fee
The landlord has substantially succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4801041 — net $8,956.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$724.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,755.88	Rubbish removal
Heat pump	$2,300.00	Heat pump
Plumbing work	$4,055.57	Plumbing work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,956.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,956.39

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Trustees of Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $8,956.39 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the oven is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Timpson attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Allan of counsel attended representing the tenant. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy started on 19 September 2023 and ended on 21 December 2023. The tenant was taken into custody on 9 December and remains in custody. The tenancy was ended by consent.
Housing First was involved in placing the tenant with the landlord and they were also involved at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that they were meant to remove his belongings of value from the premises before the tenancy ended. He was unhappy that they had not done so although Ms Timpson said that Housing First had removed some of the tenant’s belongings and they were being kept in storage.
The tenant said that after he was taken into custody, the premises were secured by the Police.
Ms Timpson said that the landlord had gone to the premises on 21 or 22 December and changed the locks and secured the premises including the garage.
Mr Allan said that after the tenant was taken into custody, he had no access or control over the premises. The tenant’s case was that most of the damage to the premises occurred after that time and was the result of vandals or burglars.
The tenant said that he was told by Housing First that someone had broken into the premises after the weekend of 9/10 December and that some of his belongings were taken. Law
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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. Claims Cleaning and Carpet Cleaning
Photographs of the premises taken on 27 December show a very substantial amount of rubbish inside and outside the house of the premises. The tenant accepted that and said that he was not in a good state towards the end of the tenancy and that he was “heavily in addiction”. He admitted that the premises were dirty.
It is difficult to assess the standard of cleanliness of the premises from the photographs because the surfaces are virtually completely covered with the tenant’s belongings and rubbish. It is reasonable to assume that once the premises had been cleared, that the premises needed a substantial amount of cleaning to put them into a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I am satisfied therefore that the cost of cleaning and carpet cleaning claimed by the landlord, and supported by invoices, is reasonable and I have awarded it in full. Rubbish Removal
I have referred to the substantial amount of rubbish at the premises. The tenant said that other people had added to the rubbish after he was taken into custody. He also said that there was valuable scrap metal there that he was sorting out and that it could have been separated and sold. He suggested that the rubbish removers would have done that. He suggested that there were people who would have a motive to dump rubbish there after they learned he was in custody.
I am not persuaded that there was scrap metal of saleable value left at the premises. There may have been some value if the tenant had sorted it and taken it to a scrap metal dealer, but the landlord was not under any obligation to do that. The tenant arranged with Housing First to remove anything of value from the premises and if they failed to do so, that it something that he would have to take up with them, not the landlord.
Ms Timpson said that she had seen the premises a month earlier and the situation was very similar to the way it was found on 27 December.
I think it is unlikely that people dumped rubbish at the premises after the tenant was taken into custody. There was no evidence to corroborate the tenant’s suggestion and the inside of the premises mirrored the state of the outside which suggests that the tenant’s lifestyle was chaotic. Given his admission about his state towards the end of the tenancy, he may not have fully appreciated the situation.
I am satisfied that the photographs show the rubbish left at the premises by the tenant. The costs claimed, supported by invoices, are reasonable and I have awarded them in full. Heat Pump
The heat pump wall unit was missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy. Where it had been installed was covered by a picture. The copper piping connecting the outside unit to the inside unit had been removed and the unit was irreparable.
The heat pump was new at the start of the tenancy and the landlord claims the cost of a new replacement.
The tenant said that he didn’t remove the heat pump and that someone must have broken into the premises and removed it. He said that the picture, which had been sitting on the floor, had some significance to him which would have been known by the person who put it on the wall. He declined to explain to me what the significance of the picture was.
There is no evidence that anyone broke into the premises. The tenant said that the Police were involved and so there should be a Police report. Ms Timpson said that she reported the heat pump stolen to the Police but apart from that, there was no evidence of any Police report. Ms Timpson also said that there was no sign of a break in at the premises.
It is likely that the heat pump was removed from the premises during the tenancy before the tenant was taken into custody and that the painting was put on the wall to conceal the fact. It is unlikely that a burglar would hang a picture on the wall after stealing the heat pump. It would also be unusual for someone to break into a house to steel a heat pump unit.
I find therefore that the tenant has not disproved liability for the loss and damage to the heat pump and I have awarded the cost of replacing it in full. Plumbing Work
At the end of the tenancy the landlord found that the copper waste pipes from the bathroom and kitchen of the premises had been removed. That involved breaking out the concrete where the pipes penetrated the concrete ring foundation to discharge into the drain. Most of the work to remove them had to be done inside the house.
The landlord has replaced the pipes with PVC pipes which have been run to the outside directly from the bathroom and kitchen and then run around the outside of the house to the drain. There is little room under the floor of the house to install the pipes there.
The landlord produced an invoice in the sum of $4,655.57 for plumbing work. The invoice covers the replacement pipes but includes some replacement downpipes and water blasting that the landlord does not claim from the tenant. After adding a labour charge to the materials charge relating to that work, there needs to a deduction of $500 from the invoice leaving a claim for $4,055.57.
The tenant denied any responsibility for removing the pipes. He said that someone must have broken into the house and removed them. He said that he knows where he can obtain disused and unwanted copper and so he had no need to remove the pipes for the purpose of selling them. He said that the value of the pipes would be minimal.
I find that the tenant has not disproved responsibility for the missing pipes. I note that if the pipes had little value why would anyone want to remove them? His explanation that someone has removed them to make life more difficult for him is unconvincing. I also note that that the tenant said that he was sorting out scrap metal outside the house that would have little value. I note as well that the tenant’s living conditions indicate a chaotic lifestyle and the fact that he suffered from an addiction could result in him taking action that cannot easily be rationally explained.
I have therefore awarded the sum $4,055.57 for the damage to the loss of the pipework. Stove
The evidence was that the electrical cable for the oven was cut during the tenancy. The tenant denied doing it, but I find that he did not disprove liability for it.
The oven was replaced because it was found not to be electrically safe. There was no evidence that the unsafeness of the oven was the result of anything done by the tenant. It did not relate to the damage to the cable which could have been replaced. There was no evidence of any other significant damage to the oven. The claim is therefore dismissed. Filing Fee
The landlord has substantially succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801041 — Leaks at Flat 2, 306 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801041 — Leaks at Flat 2, 306 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions