How much money was awarded in case 4901294?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $385.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901294?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11021640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4901294?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $385.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4901294?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4901294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11021640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 69 Orams Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4901294 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4901294 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Olivia and

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4901294 — net $1,505.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Garage door	$385.00	Repairs: Garage door
Repairs: Carpet	$550.00	Repairs: Carpet
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,505.44
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,505.44

[The tenant/s] to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Olivia and Olivia Lawrence $1,505.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Olivia and Olivia Lawrence: $1,505.44 [The tenant/s]: $694.56

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Property Manager 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 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Some of the cleaning required was due to the presence of rats under the kitchen sink area. I have reduced the claim accordingly. I have also reduced the claim because the landlord produced a quote rather than an invoice so the amount awarded is my estimate of what would have been required to clean the arears that the tenant should have cleaned.

The landlord claimed removal of rubbish including a bed and garden waste. The bed had belonged to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. It was not clear whether the bed was to remain at the premises as there was no chattels list accompanying the tenancy agreement. I note that the landlord had expected a television to remain at the premises so it is not clear how these two items should be treated differently.

The landlord said that she put the two wheelie bins out for collection. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that there was garden rubbish that required removal. Again, the landlord produced a quote for rubbish removal rather than an invoice six months after the tenancy ended. That part of the claim is dismissed.

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: garage door and wall damage, carpet damage, heat pump inverter damage, wall damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant acknowledged the damage to the garage and adjoining wall.

The carpet damage is less clear. There were some stains on the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The main concern is some black marks on the carpet in the lounge and the hallway. The landlord thought that these marks were burn marks. The tenant says that the marks were caused by blue tac.

The landlord did not attempt to clean the carpet by a professional carpet cleaning company or provide an opinion by a professional. I note that the landlord has lodged a claim with her insurance company, but that claim is still under assessment.

I accept that there are marks on the carpet that were not there at the commencement of the tenancy. I have awarded the landlord $550.00 which is her insurance excess given that she may be successful with an insurance claim. If she is not successful, then that amount will cover the cost of cleaning the carpet.

I have only awarded one excess because of the age of the carpet. While the tenant said that they had advice that the carpet could be cleaned for less, no evidence was produced.

For the wall damage I note three marks on the walls. Two small marks in one bedroom and a larger mark in the entrance. The tenant acknowledge that these marks were caused when removing items attached to the wall.

The landlord said that the areas have been plastered and just need painting. The landlord sought the cost of painting the full interior of the premises. I have awarded $100.00 to paint these small areas. These could be patch painted because the landlord had renovated the premises before the tenancy commenced and would know the colour to use. I also have taken account of fair wear and tear on the walls over the four-and-a-half-year tenancy.

I have not allowed the claim for the heat pump inverter. This is located outside and is metal. There is a rust mark on the top but given that this is located outside I don’t consider that the tenant should be responsible for the damage. An item located outside should be able to withstand the elements including water.

As mentioned above the landlord sought the return of a television left at the premises. The tenant said that the television was old, and it was disposed of. While the landlord said that this item was left for the tenant’s use it is not clear that the television was a chattel of the tenancy. That claim is dismissed.

Because Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Olivia, Olivia Lawrence has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

At the hearing the tenant sought suppression. After consideration of the interests of the parties and the public interest I order that the names of the tenants are suppressed because the effect on these tenants of publication would outweigh the public interest.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4901294 — net $1,505.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Garage door	$385.00	Repairs: Garage door
Repairs: Carpet	$550.00	Repairs: Carpet
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,505.44
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,505.44

[The tenant/s] to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Olivia and Olivia Lawrence $1,505.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Property Manager 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 at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenant acknowledged the damage to the garage and adjoining wall.

I have only awarded one excess because of the age of the carpet. While the tenant said that they had advice that the carpet could be cleaned for less, no evidence was produced.

Because Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Olivia, Olivia Lawrence has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901294 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 69 Orams Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4901294 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 69 Orams Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

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