What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4845062 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4845062?

Cleaning: $352.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Extractor Fan: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $478.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845062?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503160-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4845062 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4845062?

Cleaning: $352.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Extractor Fan: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $478.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4845062?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4845062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503160-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Westmeath Street, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4845062 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845062 — net $3,211.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25/3/24	$1,020.00	4. The tenants actually paid rent until 25 March, but the arrears sought relate to earlier in the tenancy.
Repairs: to smoke damage	$2,650.00	Repairs: to smoke damage
Replace furnishings: extractor fan	$400.00	Replace furnishings: extractor fan
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$352.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$478.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$160.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,211.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,211.44

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenants however they were aware of the proceedings as they had been served with the notice of hearing and did contact the Tribunal prior to the hearing to update their email address. As they were aware and did not attend, the hearing went ahead in their absence.

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?

This was a fixed term tenancy however two months into it, one of the guarantors, the tenants’ support worker, advised the landlord that they had left. The landlords immediately advertised for replacement tenants and a new tenancy started a month later on 26 March.

The tenants actually paid rent until 25 March, but the arrears sought relate to earlier in the tenancy. Having seen the rent records provided by the landlord I am satisfied that the amount ordered is proven in evidence.

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 (RTA).

The landlord has proven in evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The photos show stains on the carpet, smoke marks on the walls, rubbish scattered throughout, unmown lawns and a generally unclean property.

The tenants also did not return the keys.

Having assessed the evidence clearly, I am satisfied that the amounts ordered are proven in evidence and reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement for having the kitchen, dining and lounge area plastered and re-painted due to extensive smoke damage, and the replacement of the kitchen extractor fan which had melted. The photos show extensive smoke damage indicating that a fire of some sort has occurred in the kitchen area.

To establish tenant liability, 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.

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) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,500 and the rent was $680 per week.

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) RTA. 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) 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.

Given the extent of the damage and the lack of notification to the landlord, I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused intentionally. Whatever the tenants were doing has resulted in a fire of some nature which most likely was foreseeable with the activity given the extent of the damage and that the oven is not burned.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in my assessment of compensation. 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. The property was painted just prior to this two month tenancy, accordingly I have not reduced the amount claimed to reflect depreciation of the paint.

Are the guarantors liable?

On 20 December 2023 two guarantors provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that the guarantors would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations. However, the landlord only included one guarantor in the application as the other was a social worker who had only been trying to help this family and they did not feel it fair to hold him financially liable for this family’s failings.

I raised the concern I had that it was not just to be holding one guarantor liable when two had guaranteed this tenancy. I also noted that the second guarantor had likely not been properly served with the proceedings given the tenancy address was given as her postal address and the tenant’s phone number was given as hers.

Accordingly, the landlord withdrew their action against the guarantors and clarified that they only seek the order to be made against the tenants. Other orders

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4845062 — net $3,211.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25/3/24	$1,020.00	4. The tenants actually paid rent until 25 March, but the arrears sought relate to earlier in the tenancy.
Repairs: to smoke damage	$2,650.00	Repairs: to smoke damage
Replace furnishings: extractor fan	$400.00	Replace furnishings: extractor fan
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$352.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$478.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$160.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,211.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,211.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Polly Marie Hiroki, Robert William Cropp and Ariana Green must pay [The landlord/s] $3,211.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenants however they were aware of the proceedings as they had been served with the notice of hearing and did contact the Tribunal prior to the hearing to update their email address. As they were aware and did not attend, the hearing went ahead in their absence.
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?

This was a fixed term tenancy however two months into it, one of the guarantors, the tenants’ support worker, advised the landlord that they had left. The landlords immediately advertised for replacement tenants and a new tenancy started a month later on 26 March.
The tenants actually paid rent until 25 March, but the arrears sought relate to earlier in the tenancy. Having seen the rent records provided by the landlord I am satisfied that the amount ordered is proven in evidence.

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 (RTA).
The landlord has proven in evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The photos show stains on the carpet, smoke marks on the walls, rubbish scattered throughout, unmown lawns and a generally unclean property.
The tenants also did not return the keys.
Having assessed the evidence clearly, I am satisfied that the amounts ordered are proven in evidence and reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement for having the kitchen, dining and lounge area plastered and re-painted due to extensive smoke damage, and the replacement of the kitchen extractor fan which had melted. The photos show extensive smoke damage indicating that a fire of some sort has occurred in the kitchen area.
To establish tenant liability, 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.
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) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,500 and the rent was $680 per week.
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) RTA. 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) 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.
Given the extent of the damage and the lack of notification to the landlord, I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused intentionally. Whatever the tenants were doing has resulted in a fire of some nature which most likely was foreseeable with the activity given the extent of the damage and that the oven is not burned.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in my assessment of compensation. 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. The property was painted just prior to this two month tenancy, accordingly I have not reduced the amount claimed to reflect depreciation of the paint.

Are the guarantors liable?

On 20 December 2023 two guarantors provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that the guarantors would be liable for any breach of the tenant's obligations. However, the landlord only included one guarantor in the application as the other was a social worker who had only been trying to help this family and they did not feel it fair to hold him financially liable for this family’s failings.
I raised the concern I had that it was not just to be holding one guarantor liable when two had guaranteed this tenancy. I also noted that the second guarantor had likely not been properly served with the proceedings given the tenancy address was given as her postal address and the tenant’s phone number was given as hers.
Accordingly, the landlord withdrew their action against the guarantors and clarified that they only seek the order to be made against the tenants. Other orders
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845062 — Property damage at 32 Westmeath Street, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4845062 — Property damage at 32 Westmeath Street, Waitangirua, Porirua 5024

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?

Are the guarantors liable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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?

Are the guarantors liable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions