What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4890293 about?

The tribunal order states: Hannah Lee Marata Christensen must pay [The landlord/s] $1,120.44

How much money was awarded in case 4890293?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Washing Machine: $120.75 awarded to landlord; And Painting Of Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Placement Of Front Fdoor: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Knob On Oven: $195.50 awarded to landlord; To Deck: $161.00 awarded to landlord; To Garage Walls: $701.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4890293?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10691489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4890293 about?

The tribunal order states: Hannah Lee Marata Christensen must pay [The landlord/s] $1,120.44

How much money was awarded in case 4890293?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Washing Machine: $120.75 awarded to landlord; And Painting Of Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Placement Of Front Fdoor: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Knob On Oven: $195.50 awarded to landlord; To Deck: $161.00 awarded to landlord; To Garage Walls: $701.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4890293?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10691489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 10 Palmerston Street, Hamilton Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4890293 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 9, 10 Palmerston Street, Hamilton Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4890293 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4890293 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$155.25	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: and garage remote	$260.00	Lock/key replacement: and garage remote
Recycling bin replacements	$86.00	Recycling bin replacements
remove washing machine	$120.75	remove washing machine
Repairs: to deck	$161.00	Repairs: to deck
Repairs: and painting of walls	$350.00	Repairs: and painting of walls
Repairs: replace missing knob on oven	$195.50	Repairs: replace missing knob on oven
Repairs: placement of front fdoor	$1,000.00	Repairs: placement of front fdoor
Repairs: to garage walls	$701.50	Repairs: to garage walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,120.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,120.44

Claims and awards for application 4890293 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $155.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement: and garage remote

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: and garage remote

Recycling bin replacements

Amount: $86.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Recycling bin replacements

remove washing machine

Amount: $120.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: remove washing machine

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

Hannah Lee Marata Christensen must pay [The landlord/s] $1,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
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 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was stained in several places. The cost to clean the carpet reflects in the work undertaken to attempt to remove the stains, which was unsuccessful.
The tenant left a washing machine at the premises; opportunity was given for the tenant to remove the washing machine but she did not do so.
The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remote/s.
The glass recycling crate and yellow lidded recycling bin were missing at the end of the tenancy and needed replacing.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The deck: a repair had been carried out to the deck by the tenant during the tenancy. The repair to the decking was not fit for the purpose as the repaired decking was not attached to the bearers adequately.
Replacement of the front door: The tenant damaged the front door. The door appears to have been opened by force without the use of the key. I am satisfied the insurance excess was $1,000 and that the cost to replace the front door was $1,506.06. I find a door of this type would have a 15-20 year life span in a tenancy property. Therefore after taking into account betterment and depreciation I find the landlord is entitled to the excess.
I find the damage to the deck and the front door to be intentional damage.
Oven knob: An oven knob was missing at the end of the tenancy and needed to be replaced.
Damage to walls: a number of walls were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord has paid $2,000.00 to have all the walls repainted and claims $350.00 from the tenant. I find the cost claimed is reasonable and less than the amount the landlord could have claimed.
Damage to garage walls: In addition to the damage to the walls as above, the walls in the garage were damaged.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the damage to the walls, garage walls and oven are more likely than not to be 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.
Filing fee: As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord seeks suppression of its name, and as the landlord has been successful in its claim suppression is granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4890293 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$155.25	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: and garage remote	$260.00	Lock/key replacement: and garage remote
Recycling bin replacements	$86.00	Recycling bin replacements
remove washing machine	$120.75	remove washing machine
Repairs: to deck	$161.00	Repairs: to deck
Repairs: and painting of walls	$350.00	Repairs: and painting of walls
Repairs: replace missing knob on oven	$195.50	Repairs: replace missing knob on oven
Repairs: placement of front fdoor	$1,000.00	Repairs: placement of front fdoor
Repairs: to garage walls	$701.50	Repairs: to garage walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,120.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,120.44

Claims and awards for application 4890293 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $155.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement: and garage remote

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: and garage remote

Recycling bin replacements

Amount: $86.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Recycling bin replacements

remove washing machine

Amount: $120.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: remove washing machine

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

Hannah Lee Marata Christensen must pay [The landlord/s] $1,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
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 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was stained in several places. The cost to clean the carpet reflects in the work undertaken to attempt to remove the stains, which was unsuccessful.
The tenant left a washing machine at the premises; opportunity was given for the tenant to remove the washing machine but she did not do so.
The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remote/s.
The glass recycling crate and yellow lidded recycling bin were missing at the end of the tenancy and needed replacing.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The deck: a repair had been carried out to the deck by the tenant during the tenancy. The repair to the decking was not fit for the purpose as the repaired decking was not attached to the bearers adequately.
Replacement of the front door: The tenant damaged the front door. The door appears to have been opened by force without the use of the key. I am satisfied the insurance excess was $1,000 and that the cost to replace the front door was $1,506.06. I find a door of this type would have a 15-20 year life span in a tenancy property. Therefore after taking into account betterment and depreciation I find the landlord is entitled to the excess.
I find the damage to the deck and the front door to be intentional damage.
Oven knob: An oven knob was missing at the end of the tenancy and needed to be replaced.
Damage to walls: a number of walls were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord has paid $2,000.00 to have all the walls repainted and claims $350.00 from the tenant. I find the cost claimed is reasonable and less than the amount the landlord could have claimed.
Damage to garage walls: In addition to the damage to the walls as above, the walls in the garage were damaged.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the damage to the walls, garage walls and oven are more likely than not to be 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.
Filing fee: As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord seeks suppression of its name, and as the landlord has been successful in its claim suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890293 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 10 Palmerston Street, Hamilton Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890293 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 9, 10 Palmerston Street, Hamilton Central,

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