What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955121 about?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Nicole Kirk and Chance Tamatea Larson must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4955121?

Cleaning: $1,805.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $986.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $968.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Skip Hire: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $37.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955121?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4955121 about?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Nicole Kirk and Chance Tamatea Larson must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4955121?

Cleaning: $1,805.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $986.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $968.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Skip Hire: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $37.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955121?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955121 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955121 — net $5,402.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$1,805.00		Cleaning
Repairs to walls & door	$986.34		Repairs to walls & door
Replacement chattels	$1,000.00		Replacement chattels
Skip hire	$290.00		Skip hire
Lawns and Garden work	$575.00		Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs	$968.00		Window repairs
Smoke alarms	$37.00		Smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$250.00	Rent credit
Total award	$5,688.34	$250.00
Net award	$5,402.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,402.62

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.

Previously by Order dated 28/8/2024 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and awarded rent arrears from the bond.

The application for compensation was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further evidence.

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 landlord sought compensation of $4,889.37 as follows: a. $1,805.00 for cleaning, carpets and rubbish removal b. $575.00 for lawns and gardening c. $290.00 for skip hire d. $37.00 replacement missing smoke alarms e. $2,182.37 for replacement of missing and damaged chattels.

In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, quotes, photographs and a written statement from the person who entered the premises two days after the termination.

I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove a significant amount of rubbish, and the carpets needed cleaning.

Further the evidence supports that the tenancy was for a fully furnished premises and many of the chattels were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy.

In addition, the landlord had to replace two missing smoke alarms.

The amount awarded for the chattels has taken into account depreciation.

An overpayment of rent of $250.00 has been deducted from the amount awarded.

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.

The landlord sought compensation of $2,291.60 as follows: a. $986.34 for repairs to holes in walls and replacement of the bathroom door b. $1,305.26 for repairs of windows and a sliding door.

The landlord believed some of the damage was careless, but most was intentional, due to the parties held at the premises.

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.

I am satisfied intentional damage was caused during the tenancy to chattels, walls and windows and is more than fair wear and tear.

However, I consider the exception to this is the damage to the bathroom window which was the result of a weather event for which the tenants are not liable.

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.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.

Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because she has substantially succeeded with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955121 — net $5,402.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$1,805.00		Cleaning
Repairs to walls & door	$986.34		Repairs to walls & door
Replacement chattels	$1,000.00		Replacement chattels
Skip hire	$290.00		Skip hire
Lawns and Garden work	$575.00		Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs	$968.00		Window repairs
Smoke alarms	$37.00		Smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$250.00	Rent credit
Total award	$5,688.34	$250.00
Net award	$5,402.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,402.62

Order

Jessica Nicole Kirk and Chance Tamatea Larson must pay [The landlord/s] $5,402.62 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $35.72 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Previously by Order dated 28/8/2024 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and awarded rent arrears from the bond.
The application for compensation was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further evidence.

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 landlord sought compensation of $4,889.37 as follows: a. $1,805.00 for cleaning, carpets and rubbish removal b. $575.00 for lawns and gardening c. $290.00 for skip hire d. $37.00 replacement missing smoke alarms e. $2,182.37 for replacement of missing and damaged chattels.
In support of the claim the landlord provided invoices, quotes, photographs and a written statement from the person who entered the premises two days after the termination.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove a significant amount of rubbish, and the carpets needed cleaning.
Further the evidence supports that the tenancy was for a fully furnished premises and many of the chattels were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord had to replace two missing smoke alarms.
The amount awarded for the chattels has taken into account depreciation.
An overpayment of rent of $250.00 has been deducted from the amount awarded.

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.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,291.60 as follows: a. $986.34 for repairs to holes in walls and replacement of the bathroom door b. $1,305.26 for repairs of windows and a sliding door.
The landlord believed some of the damage was careless, but most was intentional, due to the parties held at the premises.
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.
I am satisfied intentional damage was caused during the tenancy to chattels, walls and windows and is more than fair wear and tear.
However, I consider the exception to this is the damage to the bathroom window which was the result of a weather event for which the tenants are not liable.
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.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because she has substantially succeeded with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955121 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955121 — Property damage

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