What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892101?

The tribunal order states: Santana-Cheril-Anne-Kaitiaki Karu is to pay from her bond the sum of $637.86

How much money was awarded in case 4892101?

Cleaning: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $231.45 awarded to landlord; Wall: $147.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892101?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10779655-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892101?

The tribunal order states: Santana-Cheril-Anne-Kaitiaki Karu is to pay from her bond the sum of $637.86

How much money was awarded in case 4892101?

Cleaning: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $231.45 awarded to landlord; Wall: $147.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892101?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10779655-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

102 Waiau Crescent, Kingswell, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892101 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892101. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$258.75	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$147.66	Repairs: Wall
Window repairs	$231.45	Window repairs

Order

Santana-Cheril-Anne-Kaitiaki Karu is to pay from her bond the sum of $637.86 from her bond as outlined in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3182871-005) immediately as follows: a) Payment is to be made to the landlord for $637.86 b) Payment of the balance of the bond of $1,642.14 to the tenant.
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought to have an interpreter for the hearing so she could speak Te Reo. The interpreter was arrangement to attend by the video conferencing facility. Unfortunately, after attempts were made to locate her, she did not make herself available at the commencement of the hearing.
The tenant was asked if she wished to proceed in her absence and she reassured me that she was happy for the hearing to commence. She was offered the opportunity to speak Te Reo and was asked is she did to interpret for me.
She chose not to, and the hearing proceeded.
Towards the end of the hearing the interpreter linked in for the hearing, and she was advised that the tenant had wished to proceed. The interpreter reminder on the line for the hearing.
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant had a support person with her however he left not long after the hearing started.
Ms Paterson appeared for the applicant.
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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did remove all rubbish. There is no claim for this. However, there was a claim for carpet cleaning costs claimed for $258.75.
Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the carpet was old and had suffered fair wear and tear as the tenant claims, however I also accept that the stains occurred during the tenancy and were able to be removed and therefore the costs sort are proven. Carpet Care South confirmed in their invoice that one of the stains treated was ‘red lipstick’ and ‘multiple arrears affected’ in the first bedroom. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she cleaned with a rug doctor and spot cleaner, however this did not result in the stains being removed.
On the balance of probabilities, I accept this claim as proven.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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:
There was a hole in a bedroom wall and the tenant took responsibility for this and had attempted to fix however it required further remedial work. On the evidence this is proven as having been caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The further claim for damages is in relation to the broken window. The tenant claims it was a crack that got worse over time. The photo evidence shows a significant sizeable crack in the window. Again, I am satisfied that this occurred during the tenancy as it has not been outlined in the pre tenancy inspection and the costs to remedy are proven.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenant has filed a claim for compensation of $9,000.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the bathroom was in a state of disrepair, and she did not know it was going to take so long and did not know that the owner would be getting four quotes. There was evidence at the delays in getting quotes due to obtaining access. Whilst I accept that the relationship between the parties was becoming strained, I do not accept that the grounds have been proven for this breach and that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her by failing to give her peace and quiet enjoyment.
Unfortunately, the parties in these proceedings have had difficulties in communicating that has led to stressful times during this tenancy.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant claims that the breach of her peace and quiet enjoyment occurred when the plumber asked the father of her children if he lived there. She said he had no right and that was a breach of her peace.
This incident, whilst the tenant did not accept was appropriate, does not amount to the type of behaviour that would lead to a claim for exemplary damages as defined above.
Whilst the tenant also appears to put under this category that there was confusing and miscommunication around the issues of the notice given to terminate this tenancy, and misunderstanding of what the repair man was there to fix at times, this was still insufficient to be awarded damages for this type of claim.
Having considered all of the information submitted before me I must therefore dismiss this claim as it has not been proven.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were asked if there was anything further anyone wished to add and if their claims had been heard, they agreed, and the hearing concluded with a Karakia.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892101. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$258.75	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$147.66	Repairs: Wall
Window repairs	$231.45	Window repairs

Order

Santana-Cheril-Anne-Kaitiaki Karu is to pay from her bond the sum of $637.86 from her bond as outlined in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (3182871-005) immediately as follows: a) Payment is to be made to the landlord for $637.86 b) Payment of the balance of the bond of $1,642.14 to the tenant.
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought to have an interpreter for the hearing so she could speak Te Reo. The interpreter was arrangement to attend by the video conferencing facility. Unfortunately, after attempts were made to locate her, she did not make herself available at the commencement of the hearing.
The tenant was asked if she wished to proceed in her absence and she reassured me that she was happy for the hearing to commence. She was offered the opportunity to speak Te Reo and was asked is she did to interpret for me.
She chose not to, and the hearing proceeded.
Towards the end of the hearing the interpreter linked in for the hearing, and she was advised that the tenant had wished to proceed. The interpreter reminder on the line for the hearing.
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant had a support person with her however he left not long after the hearing started.
Ms Paterson appeared for the applicant.
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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did remove all rubbish. There is no claim for this. However, there was a claim for carpet cleaning costs claimed for $258.75.
Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the carpet was old and had suffered fair wear and tear as the tenant claims, however I also accept that the stains occurred during the tenancy and were able to be removed and therefore the costs sort are proven. Carpet Care South confirmed in their invoice that one of the stains treated was ‘red lipstick’ and ‘multiple arrears affected’ in the first bedroom. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she cleaned with a rug doctor and spot cleaner, however this did not result in the stains being removed.
On the balance of probabilities, I accept this claim as proven.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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:
There was a hole in a bedroom wall and the tenant took responsibility for this and had attempted to fix however it required further remedial work. On the evidence this is proven as having been caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The further claim for damages is in relation to the broken window. The tenant claims it was a crack that got worse over time. The photo evidence shows a significant sizeable crack in the window. Again, I am satisfied that this occurred during the tenancy as it has not been outlined in the pre tenancy inspection and the costs to remedy are proven.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenant has filed a claim for compensation of $9,000.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the bathroom was in a state of disrepair, and she did not know it was going to take so long and did not know that the owner would be getting four quotes. There was evidence at the delays in getting quotes due to obtaining access. Whilst I accept that the relationship between the parties was becoming strained, I do not accept that the grounds have been proven for this breach and that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her by failing to give her peace and quiet enjoyment.
Unfortunately, the parties in these proceedings have had difficulties in communicating that has led to stressful times during this tenancy.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant claims that the breach of her peace and quiet enjoyment occurred when the plumber asked the father of her children if he lived there. She said he had no right and that was a breach of her peace.
This incident, whilst the tenant did not accept was appropriate, does not amount to the type of behaviour that would lead to a claim for exemplary damages as defined above.
Whilst the tenant also appears to put under this category that there was confusing and miscommunication around the issues of the notice given to terminate this tenancy, and misunderstanding of what the repair man was there to fix at times, this was still insufficient to be awarded damages for this type of claim.
Having considered all of the information submitted before me I must therefore dismiss this claim as it has not been proven.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were asked if there was anything further anyone wished to add and if their claims had been heard, they agreed, and the hearing concluded with a Karakia.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892101 — Property damage at 102 Waiau Crescent, Kingswell, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892101 — Property damage at 102 Waiau Crescent, Kingswell, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions