What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4899597 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $248.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4899597?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Exterior Garage Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899597?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4899597 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $248.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4899597?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Exterior Garage Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899597?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4899597 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899597 — net $248.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$575.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$368.00	Window repairs
Replacement vanity basin and tap	$50.00	Replacement vanity basin and tap
Repairs/replacement of damaged doors	$250.00	Repairs/replacement of damaged doors
Lawn mowing	$70.00	Lawn mowing
Painting exterior garage walls	$100.00	Painting exterior garage walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$248.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$248.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $248.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared with a support person.
This was a very long-standing tenancy of nearly 10 years. The tenancy began in 2014 and ended on 23 April 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, compensation for damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant explained that she had various family members staying with her throughout the tenancy. However towards the end of her tenancy her son moved in with his partner and baby. Life became crowded and difficult and her relationship with her son deteriorated so she and other family members moved out. She said that she continued to come and go and check on the property, and would have liked to have moved back in at some stage, but eventually gave notice as her son caused various damage to the property.

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 landlord said that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos from the end of the tenancy. These show that the lawns needed mowing and that rubbish was left behind including bits and pieces of rubbish left throughout the house, a washing machine, tyre, couch, basketball hoop left outside, and a pile of garden waste.
The landlord did not specifically claim for cleaning and did not provide an invoice for cleaning and so I have not made any orders compensating the landlord for cleaning.
The landlord sought $140 plus GST for lawnmowing. I accept that the lawn is quite large, however the tenant is only required to leave the lawn reasonably clean and tidy. It is to be expected that the landlord will need to do further work, including edging, after a tenancy of this length in order to re-let the property. I consider that a total sum of $70.00 is reasonable to compensate the landlord for the state of the lawns.
The tenant said that WINZ arranged for a skip bin for the end of the tenancy and that she started putting things in it only to find that the entire neighbourhood filled it up. She said that she then ordered her own skip bin and the same thing happened.
The tenant said that all of the items in the house were hers, together with the washing machine and a tyre in the garden. She said that the couch and the basketball hoop were dumped by a neighbour, and that all the other garden waste had been dumped by neighbours. It appears that this frequently happens in the area when someone moves out.
I found the tenant to be an honest and reliable witness and accept her evidence regarding the rubbish.
I find that the total portion of the three invoices for rubbish removal that the tenant should be responsible for to be $575.00.

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 tenant said that although she had moved out and was not personally responsible, she accepted that the following damage occurred at the tenancy by people who were there with her permission, specifically her son: a. A window was broken; b. The vanity basin and tap had to be replaced; c. Various doors had to be removed and repaired/replaced; and d. The garage had large graffiti painted on the exterior in dark blue and black paint.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
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.
I have not made any deductions for the window, as windows typically have a very long lifespan, but have made deductions to the amounts claimed for the other matters for the following reasons: a. Vanity basin – there was no evidence as to the age of the vanity but it appeared to be at least 10 years old. The landlord now has a new vanity top and basin and so some depreciation is required; b. The doors that were replaced were most likely the original doors. There was very little maintenance done on the property during the tenancy and the doors are now newly painted (some with new locks), so significant depreciation is required; and c. The garage was likely due for repainting as it had not been painted in at least 10 years. I have ordered some compensation as the graffiti was very dark and so would likely have required additional undercoating prior to painting. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant sought an order for name suppression at the hearing. Although she has not been the substantially successful party she responsibly appeared at the hearing today to answer the landlord’s claim. She readily accepted that she would be responsible for any compensation payable to the landlord even though she was not personally responsible.
The landlord confirmed that the tenant had been an excellent tenant for nearly ten years and that the issues at the tenancy only arose in the last two months of the tenancy when the tenant’s son moved in.
In the circumstances I do not consider that there is any public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. I therefore exercise my discretion to make an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899597 — net $248.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$575.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$368.00	Window repairs
Replacement vanity basin and tap	$50.00	Replacement vanity basin and tap
Repairs/replacement of damaged doors	$250.00	Repairs/replacement of damaged doors
Lawn mowing	$70.00	Lawn mowing
Painting exterior garage walls	$100.00	Painting exterior garage walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$248.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$248.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $248.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared with a support person.
This was a very long-standing tenancy of nearly 10 years. The tenancy began in 2014 and ended on 23 April 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, compensation for damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant explained that she had various family members staying with her throughout the tenancy. However towards the end of her tenancy her son moved in with his partner and baby. Life became crowded and difficult and her relationship with her son deteriorated so she and other family members moved out. She said that she continued to come and go and check on the property, and would have liked to have moved back in at some stage, but eventually gave notice as her son caused various damage to the property.

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 landlord said that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos from the end of the tenancy. These show that the lawns needed mowing and that rubbish was left behind including bits and pieces of rubbish left throughout the house, a washing machine, tyre, couch, basketball hoop left outside, and a pile of garden waste.
The landlord did not specifically claim for cleaning and did not provide an invoice for cleaning and so I have not made any orders compensating the landlord for cleaning.
The landlord sought $140 plus GST for lawnmowing. I accept that the lawn is quite large, however the tenant is only required to leave the lawn reasonably clean and tidy. It is to be expected that the landlord will need to do further work, including edging, after a tenancy of this length in order to re-let the property. I consider that a total sum of $70.00 is reasonable to compensate the landlord for the state of the lawns.
The tenant said that WINZ arranged for a skip bin for the end of the tenancy and that she started putting things in it only to find that the entire neighbourhood filled it up. She said that she then ordered her own skip bin and the same thing happened.
The tenant said that all of the items in the house were hers, together with the washing machine and a tyre in the garden. She said that the couch and the basketball hoop were dumped by a neighbour, and that all the other garden waste had been dumped by neighbours. It appears that this frequently happens in the area when someone moves out.
I found the tenant to be an honest and reliable witness and accept her evidence regarding the rubbish.
I find that the total portion of the three invoices for rubbish removal that the tenant should be responsible for to be $575.00.

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 tenant said that although she had moved out and was not personally responsible, she accepted that the following damage occurred at the tenancy by people who were there with her permission, specifically her son: a. A window was broken; b. The vanity basin and tap had to be replaced; c. Various doors had to be removed and repaired/replaced; and d. The garage had large graffiti painted on the exterior in dark blue and black paint.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
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.
I have not made any deductions for the window, as windows typically have a very long lifespan, but have made deductions to the amounts claimed for the other matters for the following reasons: a. Vanity basin – there was no evidence as to the age of the vanity but it appeared to be at least 10 years old. The landlord now has a new vanity top and basin and so some depreciation is required; b. The doors that were replaced were most likely the original doors. There was very little maintenance done on the property during the tenancy and the doors are now newly painted (some with new locks), so significant depreciation is required; and c. The garage was likely due for repainting as it had not been painted in at least 10 years. I have ordered some compensation as the graffiti was very dark and so would likely have required additional undercoating prior to painting. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant sought an order for name suppression at the hearing. Although she has not been the substantially successful party she responsibly appeared at the hearing today to answer the landlord’s claim. She readily accepted that she would be responsible for any compensation payable to the landlord even though she was not personally responsible.
The landlord confirmed that the tenant had been an excellent tenant for nearly ten years and that the issues at the tenancy only arose in the last two months of the tenancy when the tenant’s son moved in.
In the circumstances I do not consider that there is any public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. I therefore exercise my discretion to make an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899597 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899597 — 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