What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816097 about?

The tribunal order states: Jeremy Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $9,614.38 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4816097?

Cleaning: $1,581.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,237.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $364.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,847.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,437.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors, Vanity, Ranchslider: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816097?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10467785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816097 about?

The tribunal order states: Jeremy Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $9,614.38 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4816097?

Cleaning: $1,581.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,237.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $364.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,847.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,437.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors, Vanity, Ranchslider: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816097?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10467785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4816097 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816097 — net $9,614.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Balance rent arrears owing to 14 January 2024	$1,847.14	Balance rent arrears owing to 14 January 2024
Cleaning	$1,581.25	Cleaning
Pest control	$373.75	Pest control
Rubbish removal: and ground maintenace	$1,437.50	Rubbish removal: and ground maintenace
Rubbish removal: Skip hire	$552.00	Rubbish removal: Skip hire
Carpet replacement, lounge, master bedroom, hallway	$1,237.05	Carpet replacement, lounge, master bedroom, hallway
Walls, doors, vanity, ranchslider	$2,200.00	Walls, doors, vanity, ranchslider
Lock/key replacement	$364.80	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,614.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,614.38

Order

Jeremy Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $9,614.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenancy in this case commenced on 19 February 2021 as a joint tenancy. On 29 October 2022, the agreement was varied releasing the other tenant. In 2023, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that a family member of the owner intended to reside at the property. Following this notice, the tenant gave their own notice and vacated the property on 14 January 2024. On or about 01 March 2024, the bond was released to cover rent arrears. On 04 March 2024, the landlord filed a claim for the balance of the rent arrears, compensation, damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee. On 23 April 2024, the claims were set down for a hearing at this courthouse today, 17 June 2024, [The property manager/s] has appeared for the landlord. There is no appearance by the tenant.
The onus of proving these claims will rest with the landlord. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
As stated, the bond has been released and applied to the rent arrears outstanding at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming the balance owed. An up to date rent summary has been produced showing all payments made, including the bond. The rent arrears ordered are proved.
The landlord’s other claims are that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonable clean and tidy condition, which includes the grounds, failed to remove all rubbish, to return the keys, and is responsible for a flea infestation. The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, doors, floors, and the carpet throughout. The landlord is also claiming lost rent for the time spent repairing the property, and compensation for what they argue is an unnecessary electricians call out.

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) of the Act.
The property has four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, laundry, double garage, and outbuilding / hobby room.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the property at the commencement and at the end of the tenancy.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to meet their obligations involves an objective assessment of the evidence. I have viewed the photographs and heard from [The property manager/s], who was the property manager for the tenancy, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in reasonably clean and tidy condition and has failed to remove all rubbish. The amounts claimed, $1,581.25 to clean the property (including an attempt to clean the carpet and remove excess rubbish unable to be placed in the skip) and $1,989.50 to hire a large skip bin, remove all rubbish from inside and around the house, and complete ground maintenance, are both in the circumstances reasonable and awarded in full.
[The property manager/s] states that upon entering the property at the end of the tenancy, he was immediately bitten by fleas. [The property manager/s] states that before cleaning and rubbish removal could be completed, the property required flea treatment. In awarding compensation for insect eradication, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an act or omission of the tenant has resulted in the infestation. Having view the photographs, I am satisfied that this is more likely than not the case. The amount claimed is awarded.
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was provided with four keys to the back door, two to the back door, one to the side door of the garage, one to the outbuilding, and two remote garage door openers. None of these were returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had the locks re barrelled and new keys cut. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full.
Regarding the electricians call out, the landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant raised an issue concerning the elements on the stove only to advise that they were no longer an issue. On or about 1 November 2023, the tenant raised the issue again. An electrician visited but found no fault with the elements. As there was no fault found, the landlord believes that the attendance was unnecessary, and the tenant should be liable for the callout.
Under the Act, the landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation requires the landlord to respond appropriately to any issues raised. The Act also requires the tenant to report any repair or maintenance issues with the landlord as soon as practicable. A failure to do so may result in the tenant becoming liable for any damage that may arise from failing to do so. Tenants should not be discouraged or held liable for meeting their obligations.
However, where there is evidence of repeated reports, several call outs and investigations, and evidence definitively ruling out the possibility of intermittent fault, then the outcome may be different. Each case will turn on its facts. This case does not reach that threshold. There is no evidence of repeated call outs. On the evidence contained within the electrician’s invoice, the Tribunal cannot properly rule out that there may not have been an intermittent fault. The claim is declined.

Is the tenant responsible damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
[The property manager/s] states the landlord’s insurance agreed in principle to cover the damage but has yet to settle the claim. The damage has been itemised on a room-by-room basis. The landlord has produced cost estimates for each room which sets out the total cost of repairing damage to walls and doors, and carpet. Where the excess is less than the total cost, the landlord seeks the insurance excess only. In each case, the total cost of repair for each room is more than the applicable excess.
The landlord claims that the carpet in each of the four bedrooms, the lounge, and hallway has been damaged by animal urine, which has soaked through the carpet to the underlay beneath. Despite commercial cleaning, the carpet is deemed to have been soiled beyond repair. [The property manager/s] states that the tenant was allowed to have a dog at the property. The dog left the property with the other tenant in October 2022, [The property manager/s] states that the dog was replaced by three others and a cat. Despite a breach notice being issued, the animals remained. [The property manager/s] states that the animals appear to have been allowed to toilet inside, and that the carpet in each room had been affected. The photographs show what appears to be animal faeces on the floor inside the house.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to meet their obligations concerning the carpet will involve an objective assessment of the evidence, primarily the photographs. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the carpet and underlay in the lounge, the master bedroom, and the hallway has been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not appeared to disprove liability.
There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied to the required standard, conducting an objective assessment, that carpet in the other rooms (namely bedroom two, bedroom three, and bedroom four) have been damaged.
Dealing with betterment and depreciation. Carpets in rental properties have a useful lifespan of approximately 10 – 12 years. [The property manager/s] estimates the carpet to have been around 5 years old at the commencement of the tenancy, and in a good condition. Accordingly, I reduce the amount awarded by 25% for betterment and award $1,237.50, (3 x $550.00 = $1,650.00 less 25% = $1,237.50).
The landlord claims that the ranch slider and walls in the lounge, walls, and a door in bedroom four, walls in bedroom three, and a wall and the vanity in the bathroom have been damaged during the tenancy. There is sufficient evidence to establish these claims to the required standard. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability. The amount claimed, the excesses of $550.00 for each of the four rooms, is less that the total estimated cost of repair. The Tribunal makes no deduction for betterment or depreciation.
The landlord claims that the vinyl flooring in the dining area was damaged by urine, which had soaked through and caused warping the wooden flooring beneath, and damage to the kitchen cabinetry, are dismissed as there is insufficient evidence.
Dealing with the landlord’s claim for lost rent. The landlord is entitled to be compensated from any loss naturally arising from the tenant’s breach. In this case, the notice to terminate the tenancy was issued on the basis that the landlord’s family member wished to reside in the property. The tenant’s notice was given as a result. Although the family member may have been delayed by the repairs, there is no evidence that they were going enter in a tenancy agreement and pay the landlord rent, and therefore that the landlord has actually suffered any loss. There is no basis to award compensation for loss suffered, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816097 — net $9,614.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Balance rent arrears owing to 14 January 2024	$1,847.14	Balance rent arrears owing to 14 January 2024
Cleaning	$1,581.25	Cleaning
Pest control	$373.75	Pest control
Rubbish removal: and ground maintenace	$1,437.50	Rubbish removal: and ground maintenace
Rubbish removal: Skip hire	$552.00	Rubbish removal: Skip hire
Carpet replacement, lounge, master bedroom, hallway	$1,237.05	Carpet replacement, lounge, master bedroom, hallway
Walls, doors, vanity, ranchslider	$2,200.00	Walls, doors, vanity, ranchslider
Lock/key replacement	$364.80	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,614.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,614.38

Order

Jeremy Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $9,614.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenancy in this case commenced on 19 February 2021 as a joint tenancy. On 29 October 2022, the agreement was varied releasing the other tenant. In 2023, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that a family member of the owner intended to reside at the property. Following this notice, the tenant gave their own notice and vacated the property on 14 January 2024. On or about 01 March 2024, the bond was released to cover rent arrears. On 04 March 2024, the landlord filed a claim for the balance of the rent arrears, compensation, damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee. On 23 April 2024, the claims were set down for a hearing at this courthouse today, 17 June 2024, [The property manager/s] has appeared for the landlord. There is no appearance by the tenant.
The onus of proving these claims will rest with the landlord. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
As stated, the bond has been released and applied to the rent arrears outstanding at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming the balance owed. An up to date rent summary has been produced showing all payments made, including the bond. The rent arrears ordered are proved.
The landlord’s other claims are that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonable clean and tidy condition, which includes the grounds, failed to remove all rubbish, to return the keys, and is responsible for a flea infestation. The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, doors, floors, and the carpet throughout. The landlord is also claiming lost rent for the time spent repairing the property, and compensation for what they argue is an unnecessary electricians call out.

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) of the Act.
The property has four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, laundry, double garage, and outbuilding / hobby room.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the property at the commencement and at the end of the tenancy.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to meet their obligations involves an objective assessment of the evidence. I have viewed the photographs and heard from [The property manager/s], who was the property manager for the tenancy, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in reasonably clean and tidy condition and has failed to remove all rubbish. The amounts claimed, $1,581.25 to clean the property (including an attempt to clean the carpet and remove excess rubbish unable to be placed in the skip) and $1,989.50 to hire a large skip bin, remove all rubbish from inside and around the house, and complete ground maintenance, are both in the circumstances reasonable and awarded in full.
[The property manager/s] states that upon entering the property at the end of the tenancy, he was immediately bitten by fleas. [The property manager/s] states that before cleaning and rubbish removal could be completed, the property required flea treatment. In awarding compensation for insect eradication, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an act or omission of the tenant has resulted in the infestation. Having view the photographs, I am satisfied that this is more likely than not the case. The amount claimed is awarded.
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was provided with four keys to the back door, two to the back door, one to the side door of the garage, one to the outbuilding, and two remote garage door openers. None of these were returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had the locks re barrelled and new keys cut. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full.
Regarding the electricians call out, the landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant raised an issue concerning the elements on the stove only to advise that they were no longer an issue. On or about 1 November 2023, the tenant raised the issue again. An electrician visited but found no fault with the elements. As there was no fault found, the landlord believes that the attendance was unnecessary, and the tenant should be liable for the callout.
Under the Act, the landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation requires the landlord to respond appropriately to any issues raised. The Act also requires the tenant to report any repair or maintenance issues with the landlord as soon as practicable. A failure to do so may result in the tenant becoming liable for any damage that may arise from failing to do so. Tenants should not be discouraged or held liable for meeting their obligations.
However, where there is evidence of repeated reports, several call outs and investigations, and evidence definitively ruling out the possibility of intermittent fault, then the outcome may be different. Each case will turn on its facts. This case does not reach that threshold. There is no evidence of repeated call outs. On the evidence contained within the electrician’s invoice, the Tribunal cannot properly rule out that there may not have been an intermittent fault. The claim is declined.

Is the tenant responsible damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
[The property manager/s] states the landlord’s insurance agreed in principle to cover the damage but has yet to settle the claim. The damage has been itemised on a room-by-room basis. The landlord has produced cost estimates for each room which sets out the total cost of repairing damage to walls and doors, and carpet. Where the excess is less than the total cost, the landlord seeks the insurance excess only. In each case, the total cost of repair for each room is more than the applicable excess.
The landlord claims that the carpet in each of the four bedrooms, the lounge, and hallway has been damaged by animal urine, which has soaked through the carpet to the underlay beneath. Despite commercial cleaning, the carpet is deemed to have been soiled beyond repair. [The property manager/s] states that the tenant was allowed to have a dog at the property. The dog left the property with the other tenant in October 2022, [The property manager/s] states that the dog was replaced by three others and a cat. Despite a breach notice being issued, the animals remained. [The property manager/s] states that the animals appear to have been allowed to toilet inside, and that the carpet in each room had been affected. The photographs show what appears to be animal faeces on the floor inside the house.
Determining whether the tenant has failed to meet their obligations concerning the carpet will involve an objective assessment of the evidence, primarily the photographs. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the carpet and underlay in the lounge, the master bedroom, and the hallway has been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not appeared to disprove liability.
There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied to the required standard, conducting an objective assessment, that carpet in the other rooms (namely bedroom two, bedroom three, and bedroom four) have been damaged.
Dealing with betterment and depreciation. Carpets in rental properties have a useful lifespan of approximately 10 – 12 years. [The property manager/s] estimates the carpet to have been around 5 years old at the commencement of the tenancy, and in a good condition. Accordingly, I reduce the amount awarded by 25% for betterment and award $1,237.50, (3 x $550.00 = $1,650.00 less 25% = $1,237.50).
The landlord claims that the ranch slider and walls in the lounge, walls, and a door in bedroom four, walls in bedroom three, and a wall and the vanity in the bathroom have been damaged during the tenancy. There is sufficient evidence to establish these claims to the required standard. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability. The amount claimed, the excesses of $550.00 for each of the four rooms, is less that the total estimated cost of repair. The Tribunal makes no deduction for betterment or depreciation.
The landlord claims that the vinyl flooring in the dining area was damaged by urine, which had soaked through and caused warping the wooden flooring beneath, and damage to the kitchen cabinetry, are dismissed as there is insufficient evidence.
Dealing with the landlord’s claim for lost rent. The landlord is entitled to be compensated from any loss naturally arising from the tenant’s breach. In this case, the notice to terminate the tenancy was issued on the basis that the landlord’s family member wished to reside in the property. The tenant’s notice was given as a result. Although the family member may have been delayed by the repairs, there is no evidence that they were going enter in a tenancy agreement and pay the landlord rent, and therefore that the landlord has actually suffered any loss. There is no basis to award compensation for loss suffered, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816097 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816097 — Rent arrears

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 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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions