What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864040 about?

The tribunal order states: Karoline Rose and Shane Thompson must pay [The landlord/s] $767.90

How much money was awarded in case 4864040?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Removal And Return Of Chattels: $1,094.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Of Chattels: $1,332.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864040?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10602552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864040 about?

The tribunal order states: Karoline Rose and Shane Thompson must pay [The landlord/s] $767.90

How much money was awarded in case 4864040?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Removal And Return Of Chattels: $1,094.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Of Chattels: $1,332.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864040?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10602552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4864040 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864040 — net $767.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace of chattels	$1,332.50	Replace of chattels
Removal and return of chattels	$1,094.96	Removal and return of chattels
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$767.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$767.90

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Did the tenant comply with their obligations or cause damage to chattels in the premises??

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must, among other matters, leave all chattels provided for their benefit.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord sought compensation for replacement and damage of a significant number of chattels removed from the premises during the term of the tenancy.

In support of the claim the landlord provided a written timeline of events, two undated property inspection reports and photographs of the chattels stored outside the premises.

While not disputing she had removed and stored furniture and chattels outside the premises during the tenancy, the tenant thought the landlord was collecting all the furniture and not just the bed.

Further the tenant disputed the replacement value of the furniture sought by the landlord.

The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term from 31/1/2023 to 31/1/2024.

The premises were let as fully furnished with extensive chattels included in the tenancy agreement.

I am persuaded that the tenant removed chattels during the tenancy and stored them outside without consent resulting in damage.

The evidence provided by the tenant does not support that she had consent to move and store outside anything other than the bed.

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.

I am satisfied that damage was caused to chattels during the tenancy by removing them from the premises and storing outside under tarpaulins.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

I consider the replacement costs claimed by the landlord are reasonable because they take into account betterment and depreciation, including the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

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.

However, although an award has been made for the costs of removal of the chattels by the landlord, I have reduced the claim for reinstatement.

The reason for this is that the amount claimed was based on the initial removal costs plus an estimate for re-installing the drier and washing machine. There is no evidence if these costs have been incurred by the landlord.

As has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.

Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they have been largely successful with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864040 — net $767.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace of chattels	$1,332.50	Replace of chattels
Removal and return of chattels	$1,094.96	Removal and return of chattels
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$767.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$767.90

Order

Karoline Rose and Shane Thompson must pay [The landlord/s] $767.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Did the tenant comply with their obligations or cause damage to chattels in the premises??
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must, among other matters, leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord sought compensation for replacement and damage of a significant number of chattels removed from the premises during the term of the tenancy.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a written timeline of events, two undated property inspection reports and photographs of the chattels stored outside the premises.
While not disputing she had removed and stored furniture and chattels outside the premises during the tenancy, the tenant thought the landlord was collecting all the furniture and not just the bed.
Further the tenant disputed the replacement value of the furniture sought by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term from 31/1/2023 to 31/1/2024.
The premises were let as fully furnished with extensive chattels included in the tenancy agreement.
I am persuaded that the tenant removed chattels during the tenancy and stored them outside without consent resulting in damage.
The evidence provided by the tenant does not support that she had consent to move and store outside anything other than the bed.
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.
I am satisfied that damage was caused to chattels during the tenancy by removing them from the premises and storing outside under tarpaulins.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I consider the replacement costs claimed by the landlord are reasonable because they take into account betterment and depreciation, including the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
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.
However, although an award has been made for the costs of removal of the chattels by the landlord, I have reduced the claim for reinstatement.
The reason for this is that the amount claimed was based on the initial removal costs plus an estimate for re-installing the drier and washing machine. There is no evidence if these costs have been incurred by the landlord.
As has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they have been largely successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864040 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864040 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions