What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808178?

The tribunal order states: Josef Sullivan, Sam Walker, Ethan Gilder and Willis Stephens must pay Neill

How much money was awarded in case 4808178?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $130.87 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,761.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Microwave: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Skylight Opener: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replacment Heat Pump Remotes: $120.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808178?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808178?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10344875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808178?

The tribunal order states: Josef Sullivan, Sam Walker, Ethan Gilder and Willis Stephens must pay Neill

How much money was awarded in case 4808178?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $130.87 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,761.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Microwave: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Skylight Opener: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replacment Heat Pump Remotes: $120.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808178?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808178?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10344875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1067 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808178 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808178 — net $6,550.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$4,500.00	Carpet replacement
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Door repairs	$1,761.86	Door repairs
Replacment heat pump remotes	$120.57	Replacment heat pump remotes
Replace skylight opener	$200.00	Replace skylight opener
Replace and repair furniture	$253.01	Replace and repair furniture
Replace microwave	$129.00	Replace microwave
Replace vacuum cleaner fittings	$130.87	Replace vacuum cleaner fittings
Repairs to weatherboard	$350.00	Repairs to weatherboard
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning furniture	$224.25	Cleaning furniture
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,550.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,550.00

All parties attended the hearing.

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

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claimed compensation of $1,719.44 as follows: a. $560.00 for carpet and furniture cleaning b. $560.00 for cleaning and materials c. $200.00 for locks and keys. d. $100.00 for rubbish removal e. $120.57 for replacement of two heat pump remotes f. $48.00 for replacement of two resin chairs and transport g. $130.87 for replacement of vacuum cleaner fittings

In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices and photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy.

The tenants submitted they did some cleaning and removed two trailer loads of rubbish before they vacated.

I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenants agreed they did not return all the keys.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Two Heat pump remotes b. Two resin chairs c. Vacuum cleaner fittings.

The amounts claimed have been ordered, except for the cleaning of the carpets and transport costs for the chairs. The latter because the Tribunal considers this a business costs of renting premises.

No award has been made for carpet cleaning because an award has been made for replacement of the carpets and the Tribunal does not usually award both costs.

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.

The landlord sought compensation for intentional damage of $10,005.30 as follows: a. $6,839.44 for replacement of carpet in the lounge and three bedrooms b. $1,761.86 for damage to six doors c. $129.00 for replacement of a damaged microwave d. $200.00 for replacement of a skylight opener e. $400.00 for replacement of a lounge suite f. $$200.00 for replacement of two damaged occasional chairs g. $125.00 for repair of three kitchen chairs and a coffee table h. $350.00 for damage to an external weatherboard

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 landlord believed the damage was intentional because of the amount and nature of the damage and the fact most of the damage had not been reported.

Although the landlord had insurance the claim was “in limbo” because of the eight $500.00 excesses they would incur.

In response, the tenants agreed they had caused the damage but felt some of the amounts claimed were too high due to the age of the chattels and floor coverings.

I am satisfied that significant damage was caused during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The evidence supports that the damage was intentional because it continued to occur throughout the tenancy, despite the landlords issuing a 14 day notice.

In making an award I have taken into account betterment and depreciation, in particular for the lounge and two of the bedroom carpets.

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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

No award is made for the lounge suite because an allowance has been made for cleaning and the suite has not been replaced.

As Neill John Kinniburgh, Linda Kinniburgh have substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.

The landlords did not seek name suppression.

No suppression is available to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808178 — net $6,550.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$4,500.00	Carpet replacement
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Door repairs	$1,761.86	Door repairs
Replacment heat pump remotes	$120.57	Replacment heat pump remotes
Replace skylight opener	$200.00	Replace skylight opener
Replace and repair furniture	$253.01	Replace and repair furniture
Replace microwave	$129.00	Replace microwave
Replace vacuum cleaner fittings	$130.87	Replace vacuum cleaner fittings
Repairs to weatherboard	$350.00	Repairs to weatherboard
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning furniture	$224.25	Cleaning furniture
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,550.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,550.00

Order

Josef Sullivan, Sam Walker, Ethan Gilder and Willis Stephens must pay Neill John Kinniburgh and Linda Kinniburgh $6,550.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (5062158-023) to Neill John Kinniburgh and Linda Kinniburgh immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,719.44 as follows: a. $560.00 for carpet and furniture cleaning b. $560.00 for cleaning and materials c. $200.00 for locks and keys. d. $100.00 for rubbish removal e. $120.57 for replacement of two heat pump remotes f. $48.00 for replacement of two resin chairs and transport g. $130.87 for replacement of vacuum cleaner fittings
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices and photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenants submitted they did some cleaning and removed two trailer loads of rubbish before they vacated.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants agreed they did not return all the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Two Heat pump remotes b. Two resin chairs c. Vacuum cleaner fittings.
The amounts claimed have been ordered, except for the cleaning of the carpets and transport costs for the chairs. The latter because the Tribunal considers this a business costs of renting premises.
No award has been made for carpet cleaning because an award has been made for replacement of the carpets and the Tribunal does not usually award both costs.

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.
The landlord sought compensation for intentional damage of $10,005.30 as follows: a. $6,839.44 for replacement of carpet in the lounge and three bedrooms b. $1,761.86 for damage to six doors c. $129.00 for replacement of a damaged microwave d. $200.00 for replacement of a skylight opener e. $400.00 for replacement of a lounge suite f. $$200.00 for replacement of two damaged occasional chairs g. $125.00 for repair of three kitchen chairs and a coffee table h. $350.00 for damage to an external weatherboard
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 landlord believed the damage was intentional because of the amount and nature of the damage and the fact most of the damage had not been reported.
Although the landlord had insurance the claim was “in limbo” because of the eight $500.00 excesses they would incur.
In response, the tenants agreed they had caused the damage but felt some of the amounts claimed were too high due to the age of the chattels and floor coverings.
I am satisfied that significant damage was caused during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The evidence supports that the damage was intentional because it continued to occur throughout the tenancy, despite the landlords issuing a 14 day notice.
In making an award I have taken into account betterment and depreciation, in particular for the lounge and two of the bedroom carpets.
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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
No award is made for the lounge suite because an allowance has been made for cleaning and the suite has not been replaced.
As Neill John Kinniburgh, Linda Kinniburgh have substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
The landlords did not seek name suppression.
No suppression is available to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808178 — Property damage at 1067 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808178 — Property damage at 1067 George Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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 tenants 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