What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919833 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4919833?

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 4919833?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11294297-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919833 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4919833?

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 4919833?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11294297-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

297 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, RD 26, Temuka Tenancy Tribunal Case 4919833 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Graeme Wilson and Rebecca Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $16,115.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and the owner of the premises attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent 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 (RTA).
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount of rubbish that had to be removed from the exterior of the premises was considerable and included multiple tyres. The owner of the premises spent a large amount of time cleaning and cleaning the carpets which required multiple attempts.

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.
The landlord is insured but the only claim considered by the insurer was for damage to the carpets. The excess on the policy meant that no claim could be made or accepted.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: there were holes in walls that had to be repaired, plastered, and painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices, pre and post tenancy photos, and by the evidence given by the landlord and the owner at the hearing.
I am satisfied that the landlord (the owner) took all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss over what was a long (10-year) tenancy. He initially managed the tenancy. He then appointed a property manager in 2021. The property manager gave evidence of their efforts to work with the tenants to remove rubbish and to keep the premises clean.
I have reduced the owner’s claim for the work he did to an hourly rate of $25.00, more in keeping with the amount the Tribunal usually compensates landlord labour (rather than the amount claimed of $35.00 per hour).
As the application is successful, I have awarded the landlord the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as the application is wholly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Graeme Wilson and Rebecca Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $16,115.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and the owner of the premises attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent 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 (RTA).
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount of rubbish that had to be removed from the exterior of the premises was considerable and included multiple tyres. The owner of the premises spent a large amount of time cleaning and cleaning the carpets which required multiple attempts.

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.
The landlord is insured but the only claim considered by the insurer was for damage to the carpets. The excess on the policy meant that no claim could be made or accepted.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: there were holes in walls that had to be repaired, plastered, and painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices, pre and post tenancy photos, and by the evidence given by the landlord and the owner at the hearing.
I am satisfied that the landlord (the owner) took all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss over what was a long (10-year) tenancy. He initially managed the tenancy. He then appointed a property manager in 2021. The property manager gave evidence of their efforts to work with the tenants to remove rubbish and to keep the premises clean.
I have reduced the owner’s claim for the work he did to an hourly rate of $25.00, more in keeping with the amount the Tribunal usually compensates landlord labour (rather than the amount claimed of $35.00 per hour).
As the application is successful, I have awarded the landlord the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as the application is wholly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919833 — Cleanliness at 297 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, RD 26, Temuka

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919833 — Cleanliness at 297 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, RD 26, Temuka

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?