What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4856560 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and GAT Trust Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4856560?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Costs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Costs (Fridge: $97.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Tidy: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,381.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $635.92 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Trough: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856560?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10537093-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4856560 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and GAT Trust Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4856560?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Costs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Costs (Fridge: $97.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Outside Tidy: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,381.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $635.92 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Trough: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856560?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10537093-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 Whites Road, Ohoka 7692 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856560 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856560 — net $9,864.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Dump costs	$100.00	Dump costs
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Rent arrears to 3 May 2024	$6,150.00	Rent arrears to 3 May 2024
Carpet damage	$2,381.00	Carpet damage
Dump costs (fridge	$97.00	Dump costs (fridge
Window repairs	$100.00	Window repairs
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Outside tidy	$250.00	Outside tidy
Light bulbs/batteries	$30.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$635.92	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Water trough	$450.00	Water trough
Net award	$9,864.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,864.36

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and GAT Trust Limited as Trustees of the E & J Hamilton Family Trust $9,864.36 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $950.00 (5692722-002) to [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and GAT Trust Limited as Trustees of the E & J Hamilton Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Mr and Mrs Hamilton attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend. The call to her at the time of the hearing was not answered and went to voicemail.
On 3 July the tenant requested an adjournment of the hearing because, she said, she received notice of the hearing late last week, received the documents on 3 July and she was unable to get time off work to attend the hearing.
I refused to adjourn the hearing and gave the tenant permission to attend by telephone. That was communicated to her shortly before the hearing. I note that the notice of hearing was emailed to the parties on 24 June, 10 days ago, and so the tenant has received reasonable notice of the hearing. I do not accept that she was not able to get time off work to attend the hearing and she did not offer any evidence to support that claim.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 3 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as ordered. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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 Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 has regard to the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other Claims Damage
There was damage to the carpet in the premises during the tenancy from animal urine, most likely cat urine, and scratching.
I accept the landlords’ evidence that the damage to the carpet and underlay was such that the carpet needed to be replaced.
Plainly the damage was beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The carpet in the premises was new at the start of the tenancy.
The cost of replacing the carpet and underlay was $4,762, proved by the production of an invoice.
The carpet was seven and half years old by the end of the tenancy and so some discount for the age of the carpet is appropriate. The landlords now have new carpet in the premises.
There are various sources of guidance available to the Tribunal to calculate depreciation. For carpet the range is generally 8 – 15 years for the life expectancy of carpet. I must also consider the fact that the landlords have been put to the expense of replacing the carpet sooner than should have been the case.
This is not a precise science and after considering the relevant factors I find that a 50% discount is appropriate. The loss is therefore $2,380.
It is not necessary to consider the effect of insurance because the landlords’ insurance cover carries a $650 excess. There would be five excesses in this case for three bedrooms, lounge and hallway. That exceeds the loss.
Had it been necessary to decide whether the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally, I would have decided that it was intentional damage. I accept the landlords’ evidence that the tenant had cats and dogs in the premises and that she was breeding cats there. There were therefore kittens in the premises. The animals were often locked in the house during the day which meant that it was inevitable that there would be damage from the animals toileting in the premises.
As well, the extent of the damage was not consistent with mere carelessness.
I have therefore awarded $2,380 for the carpet damage.
There was also damage to a windowpane. The landlords paid cash for it to be repaired. That is less than the full commercial cost and so I have awarded it. Cleaning, Tidying and Rubbish
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all rubbish was removed.
The landlords took a very pragmatic and reasonable approach to dealing with the situation. The claims include cash paid to cleaners and some modest compensation for their own time and expenses. I am satisfied that the tenant has benefitted significantly from this approach.
The landlords also had to replace numerous light bulbs.
The landlords’ evidence satisfied me that the sums awarded are reasonable. Electrical Work
Electrical fittings and a sub main board in a shed on the property were removed and the wiring was disconnected from the main fuse board during the tenancy. The landlords paid for the fittings and sub main board to be replaced and for the electrics to be made safe. The $315.92 cost of materials was proved by the production of invoices, and I accept that the landlords paid $320 for the electrician’s labour.
I have therefore awarded $635.92 for the electrical work. Water Trough
There was a water trough in one of the paddocks included in the tenancy which was missing at the end of the tenancy. I have awarded $450 for replacing the trough based on the landlords’ estimated cost. Filing Fee
The landlords have succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee. Result
The tenant’s total liability is $10,814.36. The $950 bond will be paid to the landlords leaving the tenant with $9,864.36 to pay.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856560 — net $9,864.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Dump costs	$100.00	Dump costs
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Rent arrears to 3 May 2024	$6,150.00	Rent arrears to 3 May 2024
Carpet damage	$2,381.00	Carpet damage
Dump costs (fridge	$97.00	Dump costs (fridge
Window repairs	$100.00	Window repairs
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Outside tidy	$250.00	Outside tidy
Light bulbs/batteries	$30.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$635.92	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Water trough	$450.00	Water trough
Net award	$9,864.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,864.36

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and GAT Trust Limited as Trustees of the E & J Hamilton Family Trust $9,864.36 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $950.00 (5692722-002) to [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and GAT Trust Limited as Trustees of the E & J Hamilton Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Mr and Mrs Hamilton attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend. The call to her at the time of the hearing was not answered and went to voicemail.
On 3 July the tenant requested an adjournment of the hearing because, she said, she received notice of the hearing late last week, received the documents on 3 July and she was unable to get time off work to attend the hearing.
I refused to adjourn the hearing and gave the tenant permission to attend by telephone. That was communicated to her shortly before the hearing. I note that the notice of hearing was emailed to the parties on 24 June, 10 days ago, and so the tenant has received reasonable notice of the hearing. I do not accept that she was not able to get time off work to attend the hearing and she did not offer any evidence to support that claim.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 3 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as ordered. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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 Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 has regard to the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other Claims Damage
There was damage to the carpet in the premises during the tenancy from animal urine, most likely cat urine, and scratching.
I accept the landlords’ evidence that the damage to the carpet and underlay was such that the carpet needed to be replaced.
Plainly the damage was beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The carpet in the premises was new at the start of the tenancy.
The cost of replacing the carpet and underlay was $4,762, proved by the production of an invoice.
The carpet was seven and half years old by the end of the tenancy and so some discount for the age of the carpet is appropriate. The landlords now have new carpet in the premises.
There are various sources of guidance available to the Tribunal to calculate depreciation. For carpet the range is generally 8 – 15 years for the life expectancy of carpet. I must also consider the fact that the landlords have been put to the expense of replacing the carpet sooner than should have been the case.
This is not a precise science and after considering the relevant factors I find that a 50% discount is appropriate. The loss is therefore $2,380.
It is not necessary to consider the effect of insurance because the landlords’ insurance cover carries a $650 excess. There would be five excesses in this case for three bedrooms, lounge and hallway. That exceeds the loss.
Had it been necessary to decide whether the damage was caused carelessly or intentionally, I would have decided that it was intentional damage. I accept the landlords’ evidence that the tenant had cats and dogs in the premises and that she was breeding cats there. There were therefore kittens in the premises. The animals were often locked in the house during the day which meant that it was inevitable that there would be damage from the animals toileting in the premises.
As well, the extent of the damage was not consistent with mere carelessness.
I have therefore awarded $2,380 for the carpet damage.
There was also damage to a windowpane. The landlords paid cash for it to be repaired. That is less than the full commercial cost and so I have awarded it. Cleaning, Tidying and Rubbish
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all rubbish was removed.
The landlords took a very pragmatic and reasonable approach to dealing with the situation. The claims include cash paid to cleaners and some modest compensation for their own time and expenses. I am satisfied that the tenant has benefitted significantly from this approach.
The landlords also had to replace numerous light bulbs.
The landlords’ evidence satisfied me that the sums awarded are reasonable. Electrical Work
Electrical fittings and a sub main board in a shed on the property were removed and the wiring was disconnected from the main fuse board during the tenancy. The landlords paid for the fittings and sub main board to be replaced and for the electrics to be made safe. The $315.92 cost of materials was proved by the production of invoices, and I accept that the landlords paid $320 for the electrician’s labour.
I have therefore awarded $635.92 for the electrical work. Water Trough
There was a water trough in one of the paddocks included in the tenancy which was missing at the end of the tenancy. I have awarded $450 for replacing the trough based on the landlords’ estimated cost. Filing Fee
The landlords have succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee. Result
The tenant’s total liability is $10,814.36. The $950 bond will be paid to the landlords leaving the tenant with $9,864.36 to pay.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856560 — Rent arrears at 106 Whites Road, Ohoka 7692

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856560 — Rent arrears at 106 Whites Road, Ohoka 7692

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions