What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4836760?

The tribunal order states: Donna Hogan to pay Irelands Real Estate Limited $967.58 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4836760?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $57.14 awarded to landlord; remove makeshift fencing estimated c…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836760?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10421129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4836760?

The tribunal order states: Donna Hogan to pay Irelands Real Estate Limited $967.58 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4836760?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $57.14 awarded to landlord; remove makeshift fencing estimated c…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836760?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10421129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

164 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836760 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4836760 — net $967.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as agreed	$57.14	Rent arrears as agreed
Cleaning: Estimated reasonable compensation	$300.00	Cleaning: Estimated reasonable compensation
Repairs: remove pet damaged carpet and underlay and dispose of same, treat floorboards to remove associated smell (estim	$500.00	Repairs: remove pet damaged carpet and underlay and dispose of same, treat floorboards to remove associated smell (estim
Repairs: remove makeshift fencing estimated cost	$50.00	Repairs: remove makeshift fencing estimated cost
Light bulbs/batteries: and plug	$40.00	Light bulbs/batteries: and plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$967.58
Bond	$1,460.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$967.58

Order

Donna Hogan to pay Irelands Real Estate Limited $967.58 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,460.00 (5128061-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Irelands Real Estate Limited: $967.58 Donna Hogan: $492.42
The applicant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Ahmad and Ms Oquist attended on behalf of the landlord.
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 22 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $57.14.
The tenant accepted liability for the amount claimed and the amount is proved.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord provided one invoice for the entirety of the compensation claim. Although the invoice was in the name of a business, the parties confirmed that the property owners had done the work themselves.
The invoice included no indication of the hours spent and no indication of the hourly rate applied. The owners were not present at the hearing to confirm these details for the Tribunal.
No additional invoices were provided for dumping costs, materials or other miscellaneous purchases.
The property was generally left very clean and tidy; however, the tenant had placed many stickers throughout the house, and these left a residue on surfaces when removed. The residue had to be cleaned off.
The landlord claimed a total of $720.00 for cleaning. This included an amount of $180 for the inside and outside of the windows. The tenant is not generally responsible for cleaning the outside of the widows.
In terms of the cleaning amount claimed, I consider that $300.00 is an appropriate amount. This takes into account the fact that the ingoing inspection report provided notes some stickers and sticker residue present prior to this tenancy and represents an appropriate reflection of the time it might take, at a reasonable hourly rate, to make good the other areas where the tenants stickers have caused residue. It also deducts the costs for cleaning the outside windows.
The landlord claimed $180.00 for removal of some items left by the tenant and removal of a “makeshift fence” installed by the tenant. The landlord must give the tenant an opportunity to remove any possessions left at a property before disposing of them under section 62(2) of the Act.
The tenant gave evidence that she would have picked up both the wardrobe and the large roll of paper if the landlord had given her the opportunity to do so. These items had been overlooked during packing but were not intentionally discarded.
The landlord should not have disposed of the items without first giving the tenant the opportunity to collect them, so no compensation is payable, and these claims are dismissed.
During the tenancy some corrugated iron sheets were left at the property following the removal of a boundary fence. The tenant gave evidence that she asked the owner if she could use some of these to build a fence to protect her dog and children from the neighbour’s dog. The owner agreed and the tenant built the fence.
The tenant must remove any additions or alterations at the end of the tenancy and the tenant accepted that she had not done so. I have awarded the sum of $50.00 to compensate the landlord for the dismantling of this fence. The materials were already at the property, so no dumping costs are appropriate.
The landlord claimed for costs of dumping rubbish left on the property. The rubbish visible in the photographs was a blue pool lining or tarpaulin which was partly buried under soil or garden waste. The tenant said she had not seen it before and thought it may have been the lining from the disused pond at the front of the property. There is also a blue tarpaulin visible on top of the garden shed in the ingoing photographs.
The landlord has not proven that the blue material was brought to the property and left by the tenant, so no compensation is payable for its removal.
The landlord claimed $40 for replacement lightbulbs and plugs. The tenant acknowledged that she had not replaced some light bulbs and that the laundry plug was missing. She claimed the plug was missing at the beginning of the tenancy, but the ingoing photos show all plugs in place.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent under section 49B(3)(b) 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 under 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy, the tenant’s dog urinated inside on some occasions. The tenant accepted some liability for the cost of removing the carpet and underlay (which was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy, eight years earlier but did not accept the full amount claimed.
The amount invoiced for this work was $1,000.00. No hourly rate or hours spent is recorded on the invoice and the work was done by the property owner.
The carpet was described by the owner as wet and smelly.
The tenant gave evidence that the only reason the carpet was likely to be wet was that she had a professional clean completed the day prior to vacating. She also noted that a professional clean can leave a ‘wet carpet’ smell in a property.
On the evidence provided, the Tribunal is unable to estimate what the actual loss to the landlord is for this damage.
The tenant offered to pay $500.00 towards these costs and this amount is ordered in the absence of reliable evidence to support the amount claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As Irelands Real Estate Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4836760 — net $967.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as agreed	$57.14	Rent arrears as agreed
Cleaning: Estimated reasonable compensation	$300.00	Cleaning: Estimated reasonable compensation
Repairs: remove pet damaged carpet and underlay and dispose of same, treat floorboards to remove associated smell (estim	$500.00	Repairs: remove pet damaged carpet and underlay and dispose of same, treat floorboards to remove associated smell (estim
Repairs: remove makeshift fencing estimated cost	$50.00	Repairs: remove makeshift fencing estimated cost
Light bulbs/batteries: and plug	$40.00	Light bulbs/batteries: and plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$967.58
Bond	$1,460.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$967.58

Order

Donna Hogan to pay Irelands Real Estate Limited $967.58 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,460.00 (5128061-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Irelands Real Estate Limited: $967.58 Donna Hogan: $492.42
The applicant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Ahmad and Ms Oquist attended on behalf of the landlord.
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 22 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $57.14.
The tenant accepted liability for the amount claimed and the amount is proved.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord provided one invoice for the entirety of the compensation claim. Although the invoice was in the name of a business, the parties confirmed that the property owners had done the work themselves.
The invoice included no indication of the hours spent and no indication of the hourly rate applied. The owners were not present at the hearing to confirm these details for the Tribunal.
No additional invoices were provided for dumping costs, materials or other miscellaneous purchases.
The property was generally left very clean and tidy; however, the tenant had placed many stickers throughout the house, and these left a residue on surfaces when removed. The residue had to be cleaned off.
The landlord claimed a total of $720.00 for cleaning. This included an amount of $180 for the inside and outside of the windows. The tenant is not generally responsible for cleaning the outside of the widows.
In terms of the cleaning amount claimed, I consider that $300.00 is an appropriate amount. This takes into account the fact that the ingoing inspection report provided notes some stickers and sticker residue present prior to this tenancy and represents an appropriate reflection of the time it might take, at a reasonable hourly rate, to make good the other areas where the tenants stickers have caused residue. It also deducts the costs for cleaning the outside windows.
The landlord claimed $180.00 for removal of some items left by the tenant and removal of a “makeshift fence” installed by the tenant. The landlord must give the tenant an opportunity to remove any possessions left at a property before disposing of them under section 62(2) of the Act.
The tenant gave evidence that she would have picked up both the wardrobe and the large roll of paper if the landlord had given her the opportunity to do so. These items had been overlooked during packing but were not intentionally discarded.
The landlord should not have disposed of the items without first giving the tenant the opportunity to collect them, so no compensation is payable, and these claims are dismissed.
During the tenancy some corrugated iron sheets were left at the property following the removal of a boundary fence. The tenant gave evidence that she asked the owner if she could use some of these to build a fence to protect her dog and children from the neighbour’s dog. The owner agreed and the tenant built the fence.
The tenant must remove any additions or alterations at the end of the tenancy and the tenant accepted that she had not done so. I have awarded the sum of $50.00 to compensate the landlord for the dismantling of this fence. The materials were already at the property, so no dumping costs are appropriate.
The landlord claimed for costs of dumping rubbish left on the property. The rubbish visible in the photographs was a blue pool lining or tarpaulin which was partly buried under soil or garden waste. The tenant said she had not seen it before and thought it may have been the lining from the disused pond at the front of the property. There is also a blue tarpaulin visible on top of the garden shed in the ingoing photographs.
The landlord has not proven that the blue material was brought to the property and left by the tenant, so no compensation is payable for its removal.
The landlord claimed $40 for replacement lightbulbs and plugs. The tenant acknowledged that she had not replaced some light bulbs and that the laundry plug was missing. She claimed the plug was missing at the beginning of the tenancy, but the ingoing photos show all plugs in place.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent under section 49B(3)(b) 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 under 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy, the tenant’s dog urinated inside on some occasions. The tenant accepted some liability for the cost of removing the carpet and underlay (which was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy, eight years earlier but did not accept the full amount claimed.
The amount invoiced for this work was $1,000.00. No hourly rate or hours spent is recorded on the invoice and the work was done by the property owner.
The carpet was described by the owner as wet and smelly.
The tenant gave evidence that the only reason the carpet was likely to be wet was that she had a professional clean completed the day prior to vacating. She also noted that a professional clean can leave a ‘wet carpet’ smell in a property.
On the evidence provided, the Tribunal is unable to estimate what the actual loss to the landlord is for this damage.
The tenant offered to pay $500.00 towards these costs and this amount is ordered in the absence of reliable evidence to support the amount claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As Irelands Real Estate Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836760 — Property damage at 164 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836760 — Property damage at 164 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

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