What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934738 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4934738?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934738?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790878-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934738 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4934738?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934738?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790878-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

366 St Andrew Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4934738 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934738 — net $6,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage to carpet	$5,600.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Compensation for damage to walls - plastering and	$300.00	Compensation for damage to walls - plastering and
painting	$200.00	painting
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$6,120.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,120.44

Order

An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal order suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Pauline Margaret Henderson $6,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for the replacement cost of a heat pump and stove is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Preliminary issue
The landlord named a guarantor as a party to the application. However, there is no written guarantee signed by the guarantor. At best there was a verbal promise made by one of the tenant’s parents to guarantee the tenancy.
For a guarantee to be enforceable, it must be in writing, clearly state the terms of the guarantee and (usually) the period that the guarantee will be in effect.
As there is no valid written guarantee in this case, I have deleted the guarantor as a party to the application.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on or about 14 March 2024. The tenants did not give written notice to end the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenants abandoned the tenancy.
The specific end date of the tenancy is difficult to determine. The landlord said she found the premises abandoned on or about 16 or 17 March 2024. The tenants produced evidence (a video) that appears to show the tenants’ goods having been placed outside the premises on 10 March. Before then, on 8 March, the mother of one of the tenants (the landlord’s former friend and ‘guarantor’) sent a text message to the tenant that says the locks were already changed.
Noting really turns on this point, since the tenants accepted liability for rent for the rent period that ended on 14 March 2024 and for rent in lieu of notice, since they did not notify the landlord in writing that they wanted to terminate the tenancy.
I have therefore made a rent arrears order by consent, the effect of which I explained to the tenants.

Are the tenants 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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
The landlord was not insured for tenant damage.
The landlord has 4 claims for tenant damage – the replacement cost of a heat pump ($4,100.00); the replacement cost of the stove ($525.00); carpet and underlay replacement ($620.00); and gib stopping/painting of walls ($770.00). The heat pump
The landlord said the heat pump was new at the start of the tenancy; the tenants disputed that. They accepted that the heat pump was in good working order throughout the tenancy. They said it was working well when they vacated the tenancy.
The landlord has failed to prove a claim for the replacement of the heat pump. Apart from saying that the heat pump was ‘stuffed’ and that the exterior unit was unsafe, there is no evidence to show what was damaged and how the damage occurred.
The photos the landlord produced do not establish the cause of any damage, nor does the quote for the replacement unit address that.
The tenants said the only damage was to the push-in clips on the unit.
The tenancy lasted just over 10 years. Before the Tribunal would award compensation for a damaged heat pump of that age, there would need to be some objective evidence of damage caused by the tenants that could not be repaired. No evidence of that kind was produced.
Even if the landlord had proved her claim, the tenants’ liability would have been limited to the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent. The stove
The landlord said that the stove, new at the start of the tenancy, stank so badly it had to be replaced.
The tenants said they were denied the opportunity to clean it.
The photos produced in evidence show that the condition of the stove was poor due to lack of cleaning. But again, there is no evidence to establish that the stove was damaged and had to be replaced, rather than just cleaned. As with the claim for the replacement of the heat pump, this claim fails for lack of proof and is dismissed. Carpet and underlay replacement
The landlord said the carpets and underlay in 2 bedrooms and the sunroom had to be replaced; the carpet was newly laid over polished floors at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants queried whether the carpet was in fact replaced as the photos from the landlord’s real estate agent seemed to show differently.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was replaced before the premises were sold around June/July 2024.
The tenants accepted liability for some of the damage, shown in photos produced by the landlord in evidence.
Carpet aged at least 10 years is well depreciated. A landlord cannot expect to have tenants fund new or good second-hand replacement carpets when the carpet is that old.
I award the landlord compensation for damage to the carpet/underlay of $300.00 to properly account for depreciation and fair wear and tear. Gib repairs/painting
The landlord said that walls in the lounge, kitchen and a bedroom had to have holes plastered before being repainted.
The tenants said that some damage was caused by door handles. They accepted liability for damage to the kitchen ceiling.
The premises were painted at the start of the tenancy. But after 10 years of wear and tear, some damage was likely and to be expected.
Applying the principles I have referred to already – depreciation and fair wear and tear – I award the landlord compensation of $200.00 to repair careless damage caused by the tenants that is beyond fair wear and tear.
In assessing claims such as this, when the premises are being prepared for sale, and then sold, the Tribunal must exercise caution when determining tenant liability. Factors here include the length of the tenancy, and the evidential inconsistencies about how and when the tenancy ended and whether the tenants abandoned the tenancy in fact.
The Tribunal has assessed the landlord’s claims taking account of the relevant legal principles, and in a manner that ensures fairness to both parties.
This tenancy started from the basis of a friendship between the landlord and the mother of one of the tenants. It did not end on a friendly basis though. But it lasted about 10.5 years; that is a long tenancy by New Zealand standards.
After such a long time, the landlord cannot reasonably expect to have the premises redecorated even in part totally at the tenants’ expense, nor to have new (the heat pump) or good second hand (the stove) chattels replaced at their expense. The allowances I have referred to are ones the law requires the Tribunal to consider. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $6,120.44, $5,600.00 (rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice) of which is by consent.
As the application is successful, if not fully, the tenants must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenants sought name suppression. They are entitled to that as their defence to the landlord’s application has been successful in significant part.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934738 — net $6,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage to carpet	$5,600.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Compensation for damage to walls - plastering and	$300.00	Compensation for damage to walls - plastering and
painting	$200.00	painting
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$6,120.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,120.44

Order

An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal order suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Pauline Margaret Henderson $6,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for the replacement cost of a heat pump and stove is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Preliminary issue
The landlord named a guarantor as a party to the application. However, there is no written guarantee signed by the guarantor. At best there was a verbal promise made by one of the tenant’s parents to guarantee the tenancy.
For a guarantee to be enforceable, it must be in writing, clearly state the terms of the guarantee and (usually) the period that the guarantee will be in effect.
As there is no valid written guarantee in this case, I have deleted the guarantor as a party to the application.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on or about 14 March 2024. The tenants did not give written notice to end the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenants abandoned the tenancy.
The specific end date of the tenancy is difficult to determine. The landlord said she found the premises abandoned on or about 16 or 17 March 2024. The tenants produced evidence (a video) that appears to show the tenants’ goods having been placed outside the premises on 10 March. Before then, on 8 March, the mother of one of the tenants (the landlord’s former friend and ‘guarantor’) sent a text message to the tenant that says the locks were already changed.
Noting really turns on this point, since the tenants accepted liability for rent for the rent period that ended on 14 March 2024 and for rent in lieu of notice, since they did not notify the landlord in writing that they wanted to terminate the tenancy.
I have therefore made a rent arrears order by consent, the effect of which I explained to the tenants.

Are the tenants 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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
The landlord was not insured for tenant damage.
The landlord has 4 claims for tenant damage – the replacement cost of a heat pump ($4,100.00); the replacement cost of the stove ($525.00); carpet and underlay replacement ($620.00); and gib stopping/painting of walls ($770.00). The heat pump
The landlord said the heat pump was new at the start of the tenancy; the tenants disputed that. They accepted that the heat pump was in good working order throughout the tenancy. They said it was working well when they vacated the tenancy.
The landlord has failed to prove a claim for the replacement of the heat pump. Apart from saying that the heat pump was ‘stuffed’ and that the exterior unit was unsafe, there is no evidence to show what was damaged and how the damage occurred.
The photos the landlord produced do not establish the cause of any damage, nor does the quote for the replacement unit address that.
The tenants said the only damage was to the push-in clips on the unit.
The tenancy lasted just over 10 years. Before the Tribunal would award compensation for a damaged heat pump of that age, there would need to be some objective evidence of damage caused by the tenants that could not be repaired. No evidence of that kind was produced.
Even if the landlord had proved her claim, the tenants’ liability would have been limited to the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent. The stove
The landlord said that the stove, new at the start of the tenancy, stank so badly it had to be replaced.
The tenants said they were denied the opportunity to clean it.
The photos produced in evidence show that the condition of the stove was poor due to lack of cleaning. But again, there is no evidence to establish that the stove was damaged and had to be replaced, rather than just cleaned. As with the claim for the replacement of the heat pump, this claim fails for lack of proof and is dismissed. Carpet and underlay replacement
The landlord said the carpets and underlay in 2 bedrooms and the sunroom had to be replaced; the carpet was newly laid over polished floors at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants queried whether the carpet was in fact replaced as the photos from the landlord’s real estate agent seemed to show differently.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was replaced before the premises were sold around June/July 2024.
The tenants accepted liability for some of the damage, shown in photos produced by the landlord in evidence.
Carpet aged at least 10 years is well depreciated. A landlord cannot expect to have tenants fund new or good second-hand replacement carpets when the carpet is that old.
I award the landlord compensation for damage to the carpet/underlay of $300.00 to properly account for depreciation and fair wear and tear. Gib repairs/painting
The landlord said that walls in the lounge, kitchen and a bedroom had to have holes plastered before being repainted.
The tenants said that some damage was caused by door handles. They accepted liability for damage to the kitchen ceiling.
The premises were painted at the start of the tenancy. But after 10 years of wear and tear, some damage was likely and to be expected.
Applying the principles I have referred to already – depreciation and fair wear and tear – I award the landlord compensation of $200.00 to repair careless damage caused by the tenants that is beyond fair wear and tear.
In assessing claims such as this, when the premises are being prepared for sale, and then sold, the Tribunal must exercise caution when determining tenant liability. Factors here include the length of the tenancy, and the evidential inconsistencies about how and when the tenancy ended and whether the tenants abandoned the tenancy in fact.
The Tribunal has assessed the landlord’s claims taking account of the relevant legal principles, and in a manner that ensures fairness to both parties.
This tenancy started from the basis of a friendship between the landlord and the mother of one of the tenants. It did not end on a friendly basis though. But it lasted about 10.5 years; that is a long tenancy by New Zealand standards.
After such a long time, the landlord cannot reasonably expect to have the premises redecorated even in part totally at the tenants’ expense, nor to have new (the heat pump) or good second hand (the stove) chattels replaced at their expense. The allowances I have referred to are ones the law requires the Tribunal to consider. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $6,120.44, $5,600.00 (rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice) of which is by consent.
As the application is successful, if not fully, the tenants must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenants sought name suppression. They are entitled to that as their defence to the landlord’s application has been successful in significant part.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934738 — Property damage at 366 St Andrew Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934738 — Property damage at 366 St Andrew Street, Glengarry, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions