What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814077?

The tribunal order states: Elleina Andrews must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Shay Stevens

How much money was awarded in case 4814077?

Cleaning: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,573.75 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4774598 D…: $1,520.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,040.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; To 5 Doors And Walls: $1,235.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814077?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10549249-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814077?

The tribunal order states: Elleina Andrews must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Shay Stevens

How much money was awarded in case 4814077?

Cleaning: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,573.75 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4774598 D…: $1,520.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,040.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $155.25 awarded to landlord; To 5 Doors And Walls: $1,235.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814077?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10549249-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Rota Street, Turangi, Turangi 3334 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4814077 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4814077 — net $6,212.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4774598 dated 15/02/2024	$1,520.44	Previous order application 4774598 dated 15/02/2024
Carpet replacement tenant contribution	$1,040.75	Carpet replacement tenant contribution
Repairs: to 5 doors and walls	$1,235.22	Repairs: to 5 doors and walls
Cleaning	$667.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$1,573.75	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$155.25	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$6,212.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,212.85

Only the representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend in person in Taupo and could not be contacted on her telephone number.

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15/2/2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The lawns and gardens were overgrown and required mowing and tidying.

The tenant did not return the 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.

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: 5 doors were extensively damaged by dogs scratching. There was two large holes in the walls. The carpets were also extensively stained and damaged probably by the same three large dogs the tenant had at the property. 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 awarded the amount claimed on the application form for cleaning and stain and odour removal from the carpets, despite that being a quote and the carpets not being cleaned. The property manager explained that the owner had decided to replace the carpets after the cleaning company said the extensive damage to the underlay and floorboards, caused by dog urine and faeces and ripping in some areas, would not be satisfactorily remedied by cleaning.

The amount claimed is considerably less than the tenant would have been required to contribute had the claim been for replacement of carpet throughout the 4-bedroom property.

While the carpets were several years old and may not have had much value because of depreciation, they were nevertheless in good useable condition at the beginning of the tenancy.

The tenant would have been liable for the cost of lifting them, replacing the underlay, repairing the floorboards and disposing of the damaged carpets. Those costs are a direct result of the dogs causing damage.

I have little hesitation in finding those costs would have been higher than the cleaning/stain removal quote and therefore award that amount in full. The landlord requested I adopt this pragmatic approach.

I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The amounts ordered are to repair damage caused by the tenant/her dogs only.

On 15/2/2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to Monday 19 February and the filing fee (less the bond). The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Shay Stevens has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4814077 — net $6,212.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4774598 dated 15/02/2024	$1,520.44	Previous order application 4774598 dated 15/02/2024
Carpet replacement tenant contribution	$1,040.75	Carpet replacement tenant contribution
Repairs: to 5 doors and walls	$1,235.22	Repairs: to 5 doors and walls
Cleaning	$667.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$1,573.75	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$155.25	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$6,212.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,212.85

Order

Elleina Andrews must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Shay Stevens $6,212.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 15/2/2024 under application 4774598.

Reasons

Only the representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend in person in Taupo and could not be contacted on her telephone number.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15/2/2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The lawns and gardens were overgrown and required mowing and tidying.
The tenant did not return the 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.
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: 5 doors were extensively damaged by dogs scratching. There was two large holes in the walls. The carpets were also extensively stained and damaged probably by the same three large dogs the tenant had at the property. 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 awarded the amount claimed on the application form for cleaning and stain and odour removal from the carpets, despite that being a quote and the carpets not being cleaned. The property manager explained that the owner had decided to replace the carpets after the cleaning company said the extensive damage to the underlay and floorboards, caused by dog urine and faeces and ripping in some areas, would not be satisfactorily remedied by cleaning.
The amount claimed is considerably less than the tenant would have been required to contribute had the claim been for replacement of carpet throughout the 4-bedroom property.
While the carpets were several years old and may not have had much value because of depreciation, they were nevertheless in good useable condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant would have been liable for the cost of lifting them, replacing the underlay, repairing the floorboards and disposing of the damaged carpets. Those costs are a direct result of the dogs causing damage.
I have little hesitation in finding those costs would have been higher than the cleaning/stain removal quote and therefore award that amount in full. The landlord requested I adopt this pragmatic approach.
I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The amounts ordered are to repair damage caused by the tenant/her dogs only.
On 15/2/2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to Monday 19 February and the filing fee (less the bond). The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Shay Stevens has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814077 — Property damage at 39 Rota Street, Turangi, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814077 — Property damage at 39 Rota Street, Turangi, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 rent?

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