What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4819201?

The tribunal order states: Alicia Charmain Dalzell must pay Stephen Chiman Bhana And Jasu Mati Bhana

How much money was awarded in case 4819201?

Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 4 Doors: $306.88 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $277.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819201?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10282511-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4819201?

The tribunal order states: Alicia Charmain Dalzell must pay Stephen Chiman Bhana And Jasu Mati Bhana

How much money was awarded in case 4819201?

Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 4 Doors: $306.88 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $277.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819201?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10282511-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

90B Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819201 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819201 — net $2,324.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings	$277.00	Replace furnishings
Cleaning	$520.00	Cleaning
Repairs: walls and doors	$1,200.00	Repairs: walls and doors
Replace 4 doors	$306.88	Replace 4 doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,324.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,324.32

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant by teleconference.

The landlord has compensation, exemplary damages, rent in lieu of notice and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 18/1/2024 by Tribunal order, under section 55 (1) (a) of the RTA because of rent arrears. The landlord is not entitled to rent in lieu of notice as the termination order was not made on the basis of abandonment.

It follows that exemplary damages for abandonment cannot be awarded.

The claim for rent for the 2 weeks and 4 days the property was vacant during the period when it was repaired is dismissed. A reasonable landlord builds into their business plan some vacant time between tenancies. There is nothing to depart from this general rule here; in fact the repairs were concluded promptly.

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 cleaning cost is reduced as a tenant does not need to leave a property in a spotless condition or even, so it be immediately relet. Such matters as cleaning all ceilings are a landlord not tenant responsibility.

The tenant did not return the heat pump remote.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a jug, pots, frying pan, toaster and drapes.

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: fou4r doors and several walls were extensively damaged. 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 amount awarded is less than claimed as the paintwork was 2 years old 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.

I have dismissed a claim for reimbursement of the cost of items apparently missing from an adjoining unit that the applicant thinks the tenant may be responsible for. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders pertaining to premises other than the tenancy premises. It seems likely that is a Police/criminal matter that should be taken up with the Police.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819201 — net $2,324.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings	$277.00	Replace furnishings
Cleaning	$520.00	Cleaning
Repairs: walls and doors	$1,200.00	Repairs: walls and doors
Replace 4 doors	$306.88	Replace 4 doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,324.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,324.32

Order

Alicia Charmain Dalzell must pay Stephen Chiman Bhana And Jasu Mati Bhana As Trustees For Ranolf Trust $2,324.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant by teleconference.
The landlord has compensation, exemplary damages, rent in lieu of notice and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 18/1/2024 by Tribunal order, under section 55 (1) (a) of the RTA because of rent arrears. The landlord is not entitled to rent in lieu of notice as the termination order was not made on the basis of abandonment.
It follows that exemplary damages for abandonment cannot be awarded.
The claim for rent for the 2 weeks and 4 days the property was vacant during the period when it was repaired is dismissed. A reasonable landlord builds into their business plan some vacant time between tenancies. There is nothing to depart from this general rule here; in fact the repairs were concluded promptly.

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 cleaning cost is reduced as a tenant does not need to leave a property in a spotless condition or even, so it be immediately relet. Such matters as cleaning all ceilings are a landlord not tenant responsibility.
The tenant did not return the heat pump remote.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a jug, pots, frying pan, toaster and drapes.
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: fou4r doors and several walls were extensively damaged. 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 amount awarded is less than claimed as the paintwork was 2 years old 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.
I have dismissed a claim for reimbursement of the cost of items apparently missing from an adjoining unit that the applicant thinks the tenant may be responsible for. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders pertaining to premises other than the tenancy premises. It seems likely that is a Police/criminal matter that should be taken up with the Police.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819201 — Property damage at 90B Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819201 — Property damage at 90B Ranolf Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

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 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

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