What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903955?

The tribunal order states: Andrew McCallum and Bee Clement must pay Revermann Family Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4903955?

Cleaning: $454.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,114.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet (Excess: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cooktop: $527.76 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood: $456.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903955?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10958491-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4903955?

The tribunal order states: Andrew McCallum and Bee Clement must pay Revermann Family Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4903955?

Cleaning: $454.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,114.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet (Excess: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cooktop: $527.76 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood: $456.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903955?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10958491-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Erin Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903955 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903955 — net $2,492.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,114.28	Rent arrears
Carpet cleaning	$454.25	Carpet cleaning
Replace carpet (excess	$1,250.00	Replace carpet (excess
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$180.00	Rubbish removal
Replace cooktop	$527.76	Replace cooktop
Replace rangehood	$456.00	Replace rangehood
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,492.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,492.73

Andrew McCallum and Bee Clement must pay Revermann Family Trust (Trustees: Madelon White, Sam Guest Law Trustees Limited, Kayne Baas) $2,492.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (3176784-006) to Revermann Family Trust (Trustees: Madelon White, Sam Guest Law Trustees Limited, Kayne Baas) immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced 14 July 2021 and ended on 29 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

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, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided invoices, photos, and supporting written statements from the contractors cleaning (cost of $690.00) and removing the rubbish (cost of $180.00). They noted in both statements the strong odour of cat urine that was present. One noted the rubbish included empty cat food pouches.

Given the smell, and some stains elsewhere, a professional carpet clean and deodorising was arranged at a cost of $454.25. That failed to remove the problem and the landlord was advised the carpet would need replacing. No pets were permitted under the tenancy agreement.

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.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Cooktop

There was a new induction cooktop installed shortly before this tenancy commenced. At the end of the tenancy a crack/break in the glass was noted. It was sharp and a possible cause of injury. The landlord replaced the cooktop for a total cost of $527.76. The full cost is awarded as the replacement item was at a considerable discount to the previous purchase price, effectively netting out any depreciation that may have applied. Rangehood

The rangehood was damaged due to steam/cooking below after the rangehood lights had been removed by the tenant and the cavities allowed moisture ingress. The moisture damaged the internal electrics and the unit required replacing. The total cost of this was $456.00. This is awarded. Carpet

The landlord successfully lodged an insurance claim for the pet damaged carpet. The excess was $1500.00 and sought. The actual excess of record I the tenancy agreement was $1250.00. No record of the tenants being advised of the later increase in the excess amount exists. I find the landlord is entitled to the compensation as sought but at the lesser excess recorded, being $1250.00.

The above 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

Because Revermann Family Trust (Trustees: Madelon White, Sam Guest Law Trustees Limited, Kayne Baas) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903955 — net $2,492.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,114.28	Rent arrears
Carpet cleaning	$454.25	Carpet cleaning
Replace carpet (excess	$1,250.00	Replace carpet (excess
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$180.00	Rubbish removal
Replace cooktop	$527.76	Replace cooktop
Replace rangehood	$456.00	Replace rangehood
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,492.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,492.73

Order

Andrew McCallum and Bee Clement must pay Revermann Family Trust (Trustees: Madelon White, Sam Guest Law Trustees Limited, Kayne Baas) $2,492.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (3176784-006) to Revermann Family Trust (Trustees: Madelon White, Sam Guest Law Trustees Limited, Kayne Baas) immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced 14 July 2021 and ended on 29 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

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, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided invoices, photos, and supporting written statements from the contractors cleaning (cost of $690.00) and removing the rubbish (cost of $180.00). They noted in both statements the strong odour of cat urine that was present. One noted the rubbish included empty cat food pouches.
Given the smell, and some stains elsewhere, a professional carpet clean and deodorising was arranged at a cost of $454.25. That failed to remove the problem and the landlord was advised the carpet would need replacing. No pets were permitted under the tenancy agreement.
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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Cooktop
There was a new induction cooktop installed shortly before this tenancy commenced. At the end of the tenancy a crack/break in the glass was noted. It was sharp and a possible cause of injury. The landlord replaced the cooktop for a total cost of $527.76. The full cost is awarded as the replacement item was at a considerable discount to the previous purchase price, effectively netting out any depreciation that may have applied. Rangehood
The rangehood was damaged due to steam/cooking below after the rangehood lights had been removed by the tenant and the cavities allowed moisture ingress. The moisture damaged the internal electrics and the unit required replacing. The total cost of this was $456.00. This is awarded. Carpet
The landlord successfully lodged an insurance claim for the pet damaged carpet. The excess was $1500.00 and sought. The actual excess of record I the tenancy agreement was $1250.00. No record of the tenants being advised of the later increase in the excess amount exists. I find the landlord is entitled to the compensation as sought but at the lesser excess recorded, being $1250.00.
The above 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
Because Revermann Family Trust (Trustees: Madelon White, Sam Guest Law Trustees Limited, Kayne Baas) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903955 — Cleanliness at 30 Erin Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903955 — Cleanliness at 30 Erin Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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