What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4913376 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,750.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4913376?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4913376?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4913376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10787670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4913376 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,750.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4913376?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4913376?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4913376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10787670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4913376 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,750.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms [C] attended for the tenant and Mr [K] and Mr [H] attended for the landlord.
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 was due to end on 17 April 2024 but actually ended on 21 April 2024.
The tenant requested, and was given, an additional few days to complete work required at the property. She did not realise that this would make her liable for additional rent but agreed to the liability during the hearing.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $455.00.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects and did not remove all rubbish.
The parties acknowledged that the tenant had left the property in a generally very clean and tidy state.
The tenant had pets living at the property and the landlord claimed for carpet cleaning and deodorising to remove the smell of pet urine.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had arranged and completed a professional carpet clean but gave evidence that additional cleaning was required to permanently remove the smell.
An invoice was provided to prove the cost of the additional carpet clean being $671.74.
The landlord claimed for garden work required to bring the garden to that same clean and tidy state.
The tenant was given time to complete the garden work as agreed but it was not completed, and the owner arranged for it to be done at a cost of $220.00.
Photographs and invoices were provided to prove the amount owing which included dumping of green waste.
The amount is proven except $20.00 for spraying which I do not consider should be the tenant’s responsibility.
Although it is acknowledged that the tenant had removed large quantities of rubbish from the property, she had overlooked the red bin which was full at the end of the tenancy.
There were also some items that had been put on the street in front of the house for neighbours to take. Not all these items had been taken and the landlord had to pay to dump various items at a cost of $118.20 (plus GST).
The landlord acknowledged that this included costs for dumping vertical venetians which were not the tenants’ responsibility and agreed to reduce the amount claimed for dumping by half. The amount of $67.97 is proven and is included in the $688.75 ordered above.
One tenant did not return the keys.
The cost of replacing locks amounted to $131.91 and is included in the $688.75 ordered above.
During the tenancy a set of wardrobe doors were damaged and disposed of by the tenant.
An invoice and photographs were provided to prove the amount owing.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the purchase and fitting of replacement wardrobe doors at a cost of $976.72.
During the tenancy the yellow council bin was confiscated by the Christchurch City Council.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the cost of the replacement bin, being $97.65.
During the tenancy the lounge curtains were badly marked and had not been cleaned. The tenant accepted responsibility for the cost of the replacement lounge curtains at the hearing.
The landlord claimed for replacement readymade curtains in the sum of $240.00.
The original curtains in the lounge at the property were not new but no evidence was provided as to their age or condition except from the tenant who said that they were old and ineffective at keeping the lounge warm. She had removed them and replaced them with the curtains that were in the lounge at the end of the tenancy.
As the original curtains were not new at the beginning of the tenancy and had already been replaced by the tenant, I have depreciated the amount ordered for curtains to a nominal amount of $20.00.
The landlord had also claimed for $440.00 for additional replacement curtains but that claim was withdrawn at the hearing.
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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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 (for each item of damage that attracts an insurance excess) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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).
During the tenancy extensive damage was caused to walls and internal doors in the property.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant accepted liability for the damage and had made attempts to repair the walls and had replaced four internal doors.
The tenant accepted that the painting had not been done to an appropriate standard but consider that the plastering had been completed in a tradesperson like manner and to an appropriate standard.
Although I acknowledge that the tenant had gone to great lengths to repair the damage herself, the photos and invoices show that the work was not completed to an appropriate standard.
The invoice amount of $5,864.27 (including $1,911.88 for additional plastering) is proved.
Although the property had been renovated just prior to the tenancy beginning, the tenancy lasted approximately five years so some wear and tear to the paintwork would be expected.
I have reduced the amount ordered to $4,000.00 to allow for approximately 50% depreciation in terms of the painting costs (on the basis that painted walls in a rental property should last about 10 years before needing to be repainted).
The tenant accepted that she had not installed one of the replacement doors but considered that the other doors had been installed to an appropriate standard.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice confirming that additional work had to be completed to make the doors right. The costs for repairs to a door jam and purchase and installation of handles is included in the amount of $688.75 above and is proved.
The landlord’s claim for $49.83 for repairs to other wardrobe doors was withdrawn at the hearing and this amount has been deducted from the (now) $688.75 invoice.
One hour of labour was also deducted from this invoice to cover labour in relation to the withdrawn claims ($45.00 plus GST).
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 (where possible) at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenant’s mother attended as a witness and confirmed aspects of her daughter’s evidence. Suppression and filing fee
Due to the circumstances surrounding the end of this tenancy, the landlord and tenant requested name suppression for all parties at the hearing and suppression is ordered.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4913376 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4913376 — Property damage

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?

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?