What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916576?

The tribunal order states: Kylie Jean Steventon and Cody Steventon-Biddle must pay Js Property

How much money was awarded in case 4916576?

Cleaning: $715.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,860.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,085.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $489.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916576?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916576?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11159298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916576?

The tribunal order states: Kylie Jean Steventon and Cody Steventon-Biddle must pay Js Property

How much money was awarded in case 4916576?

Cleaning: $715.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,860.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,085.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $489.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916576?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916576?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11159298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 27 Reelick Avenue, Pakuranga Heights, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916576 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916576 — net $8,710.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2024	$4,085.71	Rent arrears to 13 May 2024
Water rates	$489.73	Water rates
Cleaning	$715.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Insurance excess	$3,500.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: curtains	$400.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Compensation- s40(2)a and s40(1)(e)(ii	$1,860.00	s40(2)a and s40(1)(e)(ii
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,710.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,710.88

Order

Kylie Jean Steventon and Cody Steventon-Biddle must pay Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Azriel Hoh $8,710.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (3232106-011) to Js Property Management Limited as Agent For Azriel Hoh immediately.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the neighbour’s property and claim for exemplary damages for failing to quit are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Peters for the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, rubbish removal and compensation for damage to the property, compensation for damage to a neighbour’s property from moving van, cleaning of the premises, exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises and compensation of 4 weeks rent as a result of the landlord not being able to rent the premises because of the tenant breaches, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 May 2024 after the tenants gave notice. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 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 left a considerable amount of rubbish and belongings at the property at the end of their tenancy.
The tenant left the place in a very dirty state. The landlord did not clean the property until after the builders had remedied the damage caused by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the cost of cleaning the property. The cost incurred for the cleaning by the landlord is commensurate with the amount of cleaning that was required at the end of the tenancy because of the condition that the tenants left the property in.
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.
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: Broken window, cat door removed, multiple holes in walls and doors, holes in walls that had been badly repaired, broken clothesline, large holes in the exterior of the wall, stained and damaged curtains and curtain rails, stained and damage carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord was successful in obtaining insurance for the repairs. The amount awarded is the amount of the landlord’s excess of $3500.00. I am satisfied that the tenant should pay this amount as the damage was extensive and the holes in the walls and to the exterior, broken clothesline, window and cat door were intentional damage.
I also awarded the landlord $400 for the curtains that the landlord had to replace (which were not included or covered in the landlord’s insurance).
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. Other compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord sought compensation of four weeks rent for the breaches of s40(1)(e)(ii)- failure to remove belongings from the premises and s40(2) causing damage to the property. The landlord says that the tenants should be liable for this amount as the landlord was unable to rent the property until July as a result of the tenant causing damage. The landlord had to wait for its insurers to approve the claim, then to have the work done. I have awarded three weeks rent. I consider it a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s breach that the landlord would be unable to rent the property in the condition that the tenant left it and I have awarded the landlord three weeks rent. The landlord was not actually able to rent the property out until July.
The landlord also sought exemplary damage for failing to quit the premises. A failure to quit (s40 (1)(e)(i) RTA is when tenants don’t leave the premises on the day they say that they will. This did not happen here. The tenants failed to remove their belongings which is a breach of s40(1)(e)(ii) not (i). Section 40(1)(e)(ii) is not a breach for which exemplary damages can be awarded – see s40(3A) RTA and therefore the landlord’s claims for exemplary damages for failure to quit is dismissed.
The landlord also sought costs of repairing the neighbouring properties gutters and roof which was struck by the tenant’s movers causing damage. The Tenancy Tribunal cannot award any costs incurred by the landlord in remediating another person’s property. That is a matter that can only be determined by the Disputes Tribunal. As the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determined this claim, the landlord’s claim for damage to the neighbouring property is dismissed. Filing fee.
Because Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Azriel Hoh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916576 — net $8,710.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2024	$4,085.71	Rent arrears to 13 May 2024
Water rates	$489.73	Water rates
Cleaning	$715.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Insurance excess	$3,500.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: curtains	$400.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Compensation- s40(2)a and s40(1)(e)(ii	$1,860.00	s40(2)a and s40(1)(e)(ii
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,710.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,710.88

Order

Kylie Jean Steventon and Cody Steventon-Biddle must pay Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Azriel Hoh $8,710.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (3232106-011) to Js Property Management Limited as Agent For Azriel Hoh immediately.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the neighbour’s property and claim for exemplary damages for failing to quit are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Peters for the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, rubbish removal and compensation for damage to the property, compensation for damage to a neighbour’s property from moving van, cleaning of the premises, exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises and compensation of 4 weeks rent as a result of the landlord not being able to rent the premises because of the tenant breaches, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 May 2024 after the tenants gave notice. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 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 left a considerable amount of rubbish and belongings at the property at the end of their tenancy.
The tenant left the place in a very dirty state. The landlord did not clean the property until after the builders had remedied the damage caused by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the cost of cleaning the property. The cost incurred for the cleaning by the landlord is commensurate with the amount of cleaning that was required at the end of the tenancy because of the condition that the tenants left the property in.
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.
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: Broken window, cat door removed, multiple holes in walls and doors, holes in walls that had been badly repaired, broken clothesline, large holes in the exterior of the wall, stained and damaged curtains and curtain rails, stained and damage carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord was successful in obtaining insurance for the repairs. The amount awarded is the amount of the landlord’s excess of $3500.00. I am satisfied that the tenant should pay this amount as the damage was extensive and the holes in the walls and to the exterior, broken clothesline, window and cat door were intentional damage.
I also awarded the landlord $400 for the curtains that the landlord had to replace (which were not included or covered in the landlord’s insurance).
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. Other compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord sought compensation of four weeks rent for the breaches of s40(1)(e)(ii)- failure to remove belongings from the premises and s40(2) causing damage to the property. The landlord says that the tenants should be liable for this amount as the landlord was unable to rent the property until July as a result of the tenant causing damage. The landlord had to wait for its insurers to approve the claim, then to have the work done. I have awarded three weeks rent. I consider it a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s breach that the landlord would be unable to rent the property in the condition that the tenant left it and I have awarded the landlord three weeks rent. The landlord was not actually able to rent the property out until July.
The landlord also sought exemplary damage for failing to quit the premises. A failure to quit (s40 (1)(e)(i) RTA is when tenants don’t leave the premises on the day they say that they will. This did not happen here. The tenants failed to remove their belongings which is a breach of s40(1)(e)(ii) not (i). Section 40(1)(e)(ii) is not a breach for which exemplary damages can be awarded – see s40(3A) RTA and therefore the landlord’s claims for exemplary damages for failure to quit is dismissed.
The landlord also sought costs of repairing the neighbouring properties gutters and roof which was struck by the tenant’s movers causing damage. The Tenancy Tribunal cannot award any costs incurred by the landlord in remediating another person’s property. That is a matter that can only be determined by the Disputes Tribunal. As the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determined this claim, the landlord’s claim for damage to the neighbouring property is dismissed. Filing fee.
Because Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Azriel Hoh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916576 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 27 Reelick Avenue, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916576 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 27 Reelick Avenue, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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