What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915396 about?

The tribunal order states: Tanita Moana Jewels Ormsby must pay [The landlord/s] $11,950.45

How much money was awarded in case 4915396?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4812260 D…: $2,479.49 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher, Gas Hob, Oven: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Shower, Tap, Curtains: $2,793.52 awarded to landlord; Wall Holes: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915396?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915396?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10810030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915396 about?

The tribunal order states: Tanita Moana Jewels Ormsby must pay [The landlord/s] $11,950.45

How much money was awarded in case 4915396?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4812260 D…: $2,479.49 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher, Gas Hob, Oven: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Shower, Tap, Curtains: $2,793.52 awarded to landlord; Wall Holes: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915396?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915396?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10810030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9B Scanlen Terrace, Kelston, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915396 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915396 — net $11,950.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4812260 dated 03/04/2024	$2,479.49	Previous order application 4812260 dated 03/04/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Wall holes	$2,500.00	Repairs: Wall holes
Repairs: Kitchen	$750.00	Repairs: Kitchen
Repairs: Doors	$1,500.00	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: shower, tap, curtains	$2,793.52	Repairs: shower, tap, curtains
Repairs: Dishwasher, gas hob, oven	$1,500.00	Repairs: Dishwasher, gas hob, oven
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,950.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,950.45

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 landlord seeks compensation for carpet stain cleaning and cleaning.

The landlord produced photographs showing that there were stains on the carpet. That claim is proved, and the amount sought is ordered.

The landlord produced some photographs showing that further cleaning was required. There were two drawers, a bathroom sink and a wardrobe that required cleaning. The landlord had sought $491.63 for cleaning. While this is the amount that the landlord has paid for cleaning that does not mean that the tenant is liable for the whole amount. The cleaning award is reduced to $200.00 given that only the above areas were proved to require cleaning.

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 holes, damaged doors, damaged kitchen drawer and pantry door, damaged dishwasher and oven, damaged vertical and roller blinds, damaged kitchen tap, missing shower head, missing smoke alarm. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord produced seven invoices from the one contractor, Property Guys Limited. The invoices totalled $22,254.84. I consider that the invoice amounts are excessive for the work that was necessary due to the damage caused as evidenced in the photographs. I have reduced the amount claimed in the invoices.

In relation to the wall holes a total amount of $8,378.96 was claimed. There are many small holes throughout the premises, but these had been plastered by the tenant. I am not satisfied that 104 hours work was required to patch, plaster and paint the holes in the premises. Based on the evidence before me I have awarded $2,500.00 for wall holes.

The landlord claims $4,439.00 for repairs in the kitchen. At the hearing I was only able to establish that one drawer was damaged, there was a chip on a pantry door, one door cupboard was missing, and the bin inserts were missing. This is considerably less than was claimed to be repaired in the invoice. I have reduced the invoice to $750.00.

The landlord claims $3,137.46 to replace four doors, repair three doors and two door frames. This included painting and installing four door handles. After considering the exit inspection report I could identify three damaged doors that I am told needed to be replaced because they were hollow doors that could not be patched. There was one door that was missing. That amounts to four doors that needed replacing. But beyond these doors I did not see any other doors that needed repairing other than with a small amount of painting. The invoice includes a claim for 28.5 hours which I consider is excessive for the work required. I have reduced the claim to $1,500.00.

The landlord has claimed $2,802.55 to replace the dishwasher, gas hob and oven. In addition, $607.42 is claimed for the gas fitter to install the new gas hob and to cut the stone bench to fit the hob.

The door of the dishwasher was damaged. The landlord said that the complete dishwasher needed to be replaced. There was no evidence produced to support this claim. It is quite possible that only the dishwasher door needed to be replaced.

The oven door was damaged. Again, the landlord said that the entire oven needed to be replaced and again there was no evidence to support this rather than just the door being replaced.

In relation to the gas hob two caps were missing at the end of the tenancy. While these can cost as little as $10.00 each to replace the landlord said that it was not possible to get replacements for this hob. An email was produced from the contractor advising that enquiries were made with two suppliers, but he was told that the parts for older models were no longer available.

The tenancy commenced in 2022 and I am told that this is a new building. The appliances would be no more than three years old. I find it hard to accept that it is not possible to obtain spare parts for an appliance model that is only three years old.

Given the above I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the cost of replacing the three kitchen appliances. I have reduced the claim to $1,500.00.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name as sought.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915396 — net $11,950.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4812260 dated 03/04/2024	$2,479.49	Previous order application 4812260 dated 03/04/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Wall holes	$2,500.00	Repairs: Wall holes
Repairs: Kitchen	$750.00	Repairs: Kitchen
Repairs: Doors	$1,500.00	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: shower, tap, curtains	$2,793.52	Repairs: shower, tap, curtains
Repairs: Dishwasher, gas hob, oven	$1,500.00	Repairs: Dishwasher, gas hob, oven
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,950.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,950.45

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 landlord seeks compensation for carpet stain cleaning and cleaning.

The landlord produced photographs showing that there were stains on the carpet. That claim is proved, and the amount sought is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The oven door was damaged. Again, the landlord said that the entire oven needed to be replaced and again there was no evidence to support this rather than just the door being replaced.

Given the above I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the cost of replacing the three kitchen appliances. I have reduced the claim to $1,500.00.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915396 — Property damage at 9B Scanlen Terrace, Kelston, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915396 — Property damage at 9B Scanlen Terrace, Kelston, Auckland 0602

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