What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906773?

The tribunal order states: Christine Otaitea Lal, Vishaal Murari Lal and Bijay Murari Lal must pay Jane

How much money was awarded in case 4906773?

Cleaning: $503.09 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $237.14 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4837178 D…: $9,868.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,456.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $357.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906773?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160024-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906773?

The tribunal order states: Christine Otaitea Lal, Vishaal Murari Lal and Bijay Murari Lal must pay Jane

How much money was awarded in case 4906773?

Cleaning: $503.09 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $237.14 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4837178 D…: $9,868.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,456.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $357.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906773?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160024-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906773 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906773 — net $15,995.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4837178 dated 22/05/2024	$9,868.54	Previous order application 4837178 dated 22/05/2024
Light bulbs and paint	$237.14	Light bulbs and paint
Rubbish removal	$357.60	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$3,456.00	Repairs
Blinds and cleaning products	$503.09	Blinds and cleaning products
Wall lamp replacement	$230.00	Wall lamp replacement
Hob replacement	$920.00	Hob replacement
Repairs: Heat pump	$402.50	Repairs: Heat pump
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,995.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,995.31

The landlord attended the hearing by video. An attempt was made to join the tenants to the hearing by telephone, but the calls went unanswered.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

On 22 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 22 May 2024 and the bond was released to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

At this hearing the landlord sought the rent owed from 23 May 2024 to the date when the tenants left the tenancy. That claim was not part of this application so could not be considered today.

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 not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: curtains. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord had claimed for replacement of more than 10 ceiling light fittings. This claim is not supported by the photographs as they are neither in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy or missing at the end. That part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

There was one other claim that I have not allowed because I do not have evidence that the tenant is responsible for the damage. The invoice is in relation to building flashing and timber. The landlord had referred to damage to the garage, but the photograph produced shows that the garage required maintenance. Thos claims are 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: wall damage, light damage, induction hob damage, heat pump 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.

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.

Because Jane Liyue Jiang, Jason Le Jun Lin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906773 — net $15,995.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4837178 dated 22/05/2024	$9,868.54	Previous order application 4837178 dated 22/05/2024
Light bulbs and paint	$237.14	Light bulbs and paint
Rubbish removal	$357.60	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$3,456.00	Repairs
Blinds and cleaning products	$503.09	Blinds and cleaning products
Wall lamp replacement	$230.00	Wall lamp replacement
Hob replacement	$920.00	Hob replacement
Repairs: Heat pump	$402.50	Repairs: Heat pump
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,995.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,995.31

Order

Christine Otaitea Lal, Vishaal Murari Lal and Bijay Murari Lal must pay Jane Liyue Jiang and Jason Le Jun Lin $15,995.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 May 2024 under application 4837178.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. An attempt was made to join the tenants to the hearing by telephone, but the calls went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 22 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 22 May 2024 and the bond was released to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
At this hearing the landlord sought the rent owed from 23 May 2024 to the date when the tenants left the tenancy. That claim was not part of this application so could not be considered today.

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 not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: curtains. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord had claimed for replacement of more than 10 ceiling light fittings. This claim is not supported by the photographs as they are neither in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy or missing at the end. That part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
There was one other claim that I have not allowed because I do not have evidence that the tenant is responsible for the damage. The invoice is in relation to building flashing and timber. The landlord had referred to damage to the garage, but the photograph produced shows that the garage required maintenance. Thos claims are 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: wall damage, light damage, induction hob damage, heat pump 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.
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.
Because Jane Liyue Jiang, Jason Le Jun Lin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906773 — Property damage at 20 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906773 — Property damage at 20 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

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