What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862260 about?

The tribunal order states: Isabelle Savoie to pay [The landlord/s] $878.95 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4862260?

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 4862260?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10634796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862260 about?

The tribunal order states: Isabelle Savoie to pay [The landlord/s] $878.95 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4862260?

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 4862260?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10634796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 4 Tisdall Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862260 — Rent arrears

Order

Isabelle Savoie to pay [The landlord/s] $878.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $878.95 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,361.05 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Isabelle Savoie immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. In their application for refund of the bond, the tenant defends the claims on the basis that any damage is no more than fair wear and tear.
The onus of proving this claim rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord states the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 04 April 2024. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the carpet in the lounge, and the stove/ oven in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord seeks $138.00 for carpet cleaning, and $109. 25 to clean the stove / oven.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1) of the Act.
What is reasonably clean and tidy is not defined in the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the carpet in the lounge at the commencement and end of the tenancy. Those taken at the end show soiling not present at the commencement. The landlord has also produced photographs taken after the carpet was cleaned, showing the soiling removed. [The landlord’s representative] states that issue was raised during the end of tenancy inspection and that the tenant had stated the carpet had been cleaned. The landlord question this and asked for evidence, but none was provided.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the carpet in the lounge in a reasonably clean condition, at least the same condition it was at the commencement. The amount claimed is awarded.
The landlord has produced photographs showing two dirty oven trays, which [The landlord’s representative] state are indicative of the cleanliness of the stove/ oven at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has produced just the single photograph, taken at the distance, showing the inside of the oven at the commencement of the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] states that she has been the property manager from the start of the tenancy and that the oven was provided in a reasonably clean condition. [The landlord’s representative] states the matter was discussed at the end of tenancy inspection and that the tenant advised they had attempted to clean the trays but were unsuccessful removing the build-up. [The landlord’s representative] states the cleaner engaged used standard cleaning products from the supermarket, which removed the build-up.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the stove / oven in a reasonably clean condition, in at least the same condition it was at the commencement. The invoice includes emptying a bin in the kitchen. There is no evidence regarding the bin. I, therefore, reduce the invoice by 5 minutes labour and award the landlord $101. 57.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for minor damage to three walls of the internal garage. The landlord is claiming $287.50 for a small amount of plastering and some paint touch up of affected areas.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) 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 (or market rent). See 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. See 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. See 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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. 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 must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The photographs produced show the damage consisting of a medium sized gouge on one wall, the most significant damage, and several scrapes and scuff marks on two other walls. The landlord has produced photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy showing the walls without the damage concerned.
[The landlord’s representative] states that the property is about ten years old, and the tenant was the second occupant. [The landlord’s representative] states that in her opinion, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, pointing out that no damage had occurred during the previous tenancy, which ran 7/8 years, as opposed to the tenants which had commenced on 28 June 2021, and was more consistent with carelessness.
In this case, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. Taking into account the length of the tenancy, in my view the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The amount claimed is to repair the affected areas only and, on that basis, there has been no appreciable betterment, and no deduction is made. The amount claimed is awarded. Costs
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862260 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 4 Tisdall Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862260 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 4 Tisdall Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton

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?