How much money was awarded in case 4884740?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application Dated 24/…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Drapes: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $1,483.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: drapes in hallw…: $68.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Paving Stone: $21.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $616.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884740?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10459988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4884740?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application Dated 24/…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Drapes: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $1,483.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: drapes in hallw…: $68.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Paving Stone: $21.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $616.55 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4884740?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4884740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10459988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4884740 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4884740 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884740 — net $1,590.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application dated 24/04/2024	$20.44	Previous order application dated 24/04/2024
Cleaning: including carpets	$550.00	Cleaning: including carpets
Rubbish removal	$616.55	Rubbish removal
Repairs: holes in walls	$1,483.11	Repairs: holes in walls
Repairs: bathroom wall	$550.00	Repairs: bathroom wall
Repairs: drapes	$150.00	Repairs: drapes
Replace furnishings: drapes in hallway	$68.00	Replace furnishings: drapes in hallway
Replace furnishings: paving stone	$21.50	Replace furnishings: paving stone
Repairs: wall damage	$150.00	Repairs: wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,590.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,590.04

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Moneck Mailman must pay [The landlord/s] $1,590.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application dated 24/04/2024$20.44 Cleaning: including carpets$550.00 Rubbish removal$616.55 Repairs: holes in walls$1,483.11 Repairs: bathroom wall$550.00 Repairs: drapes$150.00 Replace furnishings: drapes in hallway$68.00 Replace furnishings: paving stone$21.50 Repairs: wall damage$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,630.04 Bond$2,040.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,590.04

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant does not have to bring the property up to a level of cleanliness required to re-let the property, only to a reasonable standard. The amount ordered for cleaning reflect this.

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. 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.

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.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There were a number of holes in bedroom walls. This was intentional damage. b. There was a burn mark on a window-sill. This was careless damage. c. The bathroom door was damaged. This was intentional damage. d. A bathroom wall panel was damaged. This was intentional damage. e. A kitchen drawer was damaged. This was careless damage. f. Bedroom drapes and a mechanism were damaged. This was careless damage. g. Drapes in the hallway were damaged and one was missing. This was intentional damage. h. A paving stone was broken. This was careless damage. i. There was drawing on the walls in two bedrooms and the lounge, and a stain on a bedroom wall. The drawing was intentional damage and the stain careless 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.

I have considered 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. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed and the repairs undertaken adequately compensate the landlord but do not leave her in a better position than at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord provided a report indicating the possible presence of methamphetamine contamination. I note that the report: a. Was a composite test that is not conclusive evidence of methamphetamine contamination. b. Was completed over three weeks after the end of the tenancy. c. Showed low levels, well below that of 15μg/100cm2 referred to in the Gluckman report and accepted by the Tribunal and the District Court as the level which would impose a duty on the tenant to remediate. d. Noted that the extensive cleaning may have affected the results.

The landlord did not submit a report at the start of the tenancy showing that the property was free from methamphetamine contamination.

These factors mean that the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that contamination has occurred or that the possible contamination occurred during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim in relation to methamphetamine contamination is therefore dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4884740 — net $1,590.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application dated 24/04/2024	$20.44	Previous order application dated 24/04/2024
Cleaning: including carpets	$550.00	Cleaning: including carpets
Rubbish removal	$616.55	Rubbish removal
Repairs: holes in walls	$1,483.11	Repairs: holes in walls
Repairs: bathroom wall	$550.00	Repairs: bathroom wall
Repairs: drapes	$150.00	Repairs: drapes
Replace furnishings: drapes in hallway	$68.00	Replace furnishings: drapes in hallway
Replace furnishings: paving stone	$21.50	Replace furnishings: paving stone
Repairs: wall damage	$150.00	Repairs: wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,590.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,590.04

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Moneck Mailman must pay [The landlord/s] $1,590.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 did not submit a report at the start of the tenancy showing that the property was free from methamphetamine contamination.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884740 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4884740 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions