What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4840560 about?

The tribunal order states: Gisinda Nancy Marie Coombs must pay [The landlord/s] $2,177.43 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4840560?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840560?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10458540-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4840560 about?

The tribunal order states: Gisinda Nancy Marie Coombs must pay [The landlord/s] $2,177.43 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4840560?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840560?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10458540-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4840560 — Property damage

Order

Gisinda Nancy Marie Coombs must pay [The landlord/s] $2,177.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for Bailiff costs is dismissed.
The Tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The hearing was delayed by 15 minutes to give the tenant time to attend but she did not do so.
The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled under sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
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 April 2024 pursuant to a Tribunal order (4821398) dated 19 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $1,928.57.
The amount ordered 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, return all keys and security devices, 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord gave evidence that the carpets were extremely soiled, ‘smelt of dog’ and required professional cleaning. The invoice for the cleaning was provided in the amount of $150.00.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The tenancy ended under a Tribunal order as outlined above and the tenant did not return any keys. The landlord had the locks changed and new keys were provided at a cost of $284.00.
Additional keys were also required and were cut at a cost of $23.80.
The garage door remote was taken by the tenant and a replacement had to be purchased at a cost of $75.89.
The internet cord (from router to power point) was removed by the tenant and had to be replaced at a cost of $35.90.
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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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 under 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 under 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 under 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 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 (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The landlord provided photographs, invoices, and oral evidence to confirm that damage was caused to walls, and internal doors during the tenancy.
The costs for these repairs amounted to $370.00 for labour and $148.83 for materials.
The landlord also provided evidence that there was significant damage to the vehicle garage door.
A temporary repair was completed at a cost of $140.00 to make the door usable.
The door likely needs to be replaced and the quote provided for replacement was $3,461.50.
The landlord has not yet had the door replaced and may be able to find a more cost-effective solution. However, it is clear that the door is badly damaged and that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
Taking into account depreciation and the possibility that the landlord may find a cheaper solution, I have awarded $1,000.00 as a fair amount to compensate for the garage door damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed for the costs ($200.00) of the Bailiff to assist with the eviction of the tenant.
The tenant was to give possession to the landlord under the previous order on 15 April 2024. The landlord attended on that date with a Bailiff and the tenant had already left.
As the tenant complied with the obligations under the previous order, a Bailiff was not required to assist the landlord on that day.
Although I understand why the landlord may have felt more comfortable with a Bailiff in attendance, I do not consider that this is a cost the tenant should have to bear as she had already left as she was required to do.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with her claim I reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression order as her application is successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as she has not been successful under section 95A of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840560 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840560 — Property damage

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?

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?