What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4957955?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Penney must pay Zoanne Cheryl Higgins $3,580.79 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4957955?

Cleaning: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Excess Only: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Door (With Holes: $300.00 awarded to landlord; scratched dining floors (limited to…: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Walls (Limited To 4 Weeks' Rent: $3,460.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $230.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957955?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11021290-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4957955?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Penney must pay Zoanne Cheryl Higgins $3,580.79 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4957955?

Cleaning: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Excess Only: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Door (With Holes: $300.00 awarded to landlord; scratched dining floors (limited to…: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Walls (Limited To 4 Weeks' Rent: $3,460.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $230.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957955?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11021290-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Magnolia Avenue, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4957955 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4957955 — net $3,580.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Garage carpet replacement (insurance excess only	$800.00		Garage carpet replacement (insurance excess only
Repairs: carpet replacement in north facing bedroom	$800.00		Repairs: carpet replacement in north facing bedroom
Repairs: walls (limited to 4 weeks' rent	$3,460.00		Repairs: walls (limited to 4 weeks' rent
Repairs: door (with holes	$300.00		Repairs: door (with holes
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard	$850.00		Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard
Water rates	$230.79		Water rates
Repairs: scratched dining floors (limited to insurance	$800.00		Repairs: scratched dining floors (limited to insurance
excess only		$200.00	excess only
Total award	$7,240.79	$200.00
Net award	$3,580.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,580.79

Order

Rachel Penney must pay Zoanne Cheryl Higgins $3,580.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,460.00 (5134622-005) to Zoanne Cheryl Higgins immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for the failure by the landlord to appoint an agent whilst outside of NZ for over 21 days. The tenant also seeks the return of her bond.
I address the parties’ respective claims as follows.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 July 2024. The landlord provided the outstanding water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts the final water bill.

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.
I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The amounts awarded take into account the cleaning required to bring to the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only.
Only the amount ordered is 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.
I note that the landlord has not made any claims for damage that is likely to be covered by the landlord’s insurance policy.
Taking a substantive merits and justice approach as required under section 85 RTA, I have not dismissed the bulk of the landlord’s claims solely for reason that the landlord has failed to adduce evidence as to whether the landlord’s claims for damage is covered or not covered by insurance. That said, I have noted that the landlord’s insurance excess of each claim for damage is $800.00. I am mindful that insurance claims may apply to each event or area of the premises and accordingly, I have made my determination on the landlord’s vacated claims for property damage on that basis.
I do not consider the alleged crack in the bathroom sink to be damage that is beyond fair wear and tear. I dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.
While there is a scratch at the bottom of the bath, I consider the so-called dent to be fair wear and tear and does not warrant a full replacement of the bath. I dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.
I also consider the slight burnt mark in the lounge carpet adjacent to the fireplace to be fair wear and tear for the tenancy from March 2023 to July 2024.
I consider the following damage that was caused during the tenancy more than fair wear and tear: bedroom door, garage carpet, bedroom carpet, walls throughout the house, and dining floor.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage to the bedroom door, garage carpet, bedroom carpet, walls throughout the house, and dining floor. That said, I consider the damage to have been caused through careless or negligent actions rather than intentional. Accordingly, the tenant’s liability on each of the damaged items/areas must be measured against section 49B(3)(a) RTA set out at [10] above and section 49B(3A)(a) RTA set out at [11] above.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation to the landlord’s claims for damage to the bedroom door, garage carpet, bedroom carpet, walls throughout the house, and dining floor. 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.
Ultimately, I consider that had the landlord sought insurance cover, it is likely to have been accepted subject to the applicable excess for the repairs to the dining floor, garage carpet and bedroom carpet of $800.00 each. I accordingly limit the landlord’s claim for repairs to the dining floor, garage carpet and bedroom carpet to the lesser of the insurance excess of $800.00 respectively.
As for the damage to the walls, I have limited the tenant's liability to four weeks' rent (see section 49B(3)(b) RTA) totalling $3,460.00, based on the weekly rent of $865.00.
I also allow the landlord’s claim for $300.00 for repairs to holes in the bedroom door.
Only the amounts ordered are proved. Is the landlord in breach of section 16A(1) RTA by not appointing an agent while overseas?
Rachel Penney claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
During the tenancy, the landlord was out of New Zealand for more than 21 days from 17 June 2024 to 9 July 2024. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have taken into account the impact of the breach on the tenant, the landlord’s explanation for the failure to appoint an agent, the fact that the landlord was still contactable by email, and the relatively short duration of the breach (of about 21 days). I consider an award of exemplary damages on the lower end of the scale appropriate in the circumstances.
Having regard to the respective awards for and against the parties, the bond is now paid out to the landlord and a monetary order for the remaining balance is ordered as set out in the table above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4957955 — net $3,580.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Garage carpet replacement (insurance excess only	$800.00		Garage carpet replacement (insurance excess only
Repairs: carpet replacement in north facing bedroom	$800.00		Repairs: carpet replacement in north facing bedroom
Repairs: walls (limited to 4 weeks' rent	$3,460.00		Repairs: walls (limited to 4 weeks' rent
Repairs: door (with holes	$300.00		Repairs: door (with holes
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard	$850.00		Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard
Water rates	$230.79		Water rates
Repairs: scratched dining floors (limited to insurance	$800.00		Repairs: scratched dining floors (limited to insurance
excess only		$200.00	excess only
Total award	$7,240.79	$200.00
Net award	$3,580.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,580.79

Order

Rachel Penney must pay Zoanne Cheryl Higgins $3,580.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,460.00 (5134622-005) to Zoanne Cheryl Higgins immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for the failure by the landlord to appoint an agent whilst outside of NZ for over 21 days. The tenant also seeks the return of her bond.
I address the parties’ respective claims as follows.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 July 2024. The landlord provided the outstanding water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts the final water bill.

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.
I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The amounts awarded take into account the cleaning required to bring to the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only.
Only the amount ordered is 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.
I note that the landlord has not made any claims for damage that is likely to be covered by the landlord’s insurance policy.
Taking a substantive merits and justice approach as required under section 85 RTA, I have not dismissed the bulk of the landlord’s claims solely for reason that the landlord has failed to adduce evidence as to whether the landlord’s claims for damage is covered or not covered by insurance. That said, I have noted that the landlord’s insurance excess of each claim for damage is $800.00. I am mindful that insurance claims may apply to each event or area of the premises and accordingly, I have made my determination on the landlord’s vacated claims for property damage on that basis.
I do not consider the alleged crack in the bathroom sink to be damage that is beyond fair wear and tear. I dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.
While there is a scratch at the bottom of the bath, I consider the so-called dent to be fair wear and tear and does not warrant a full replacement of the bath. I dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.
I also consider the slight burnt mark in the lounge carpet adjacent to the fireplace to be fair wear and tear for the tenancy from March 2023 to July 2024.
I consider the following damage that was caused during the tenancy more than fair wear and tear: bedroom door, garage carpet, bedroom carpet, walls throughout the house, and dining floor.
The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage to the bedroom door, garage carpet, bedroom carpet, walls throughout the house, and dining floor. That said, I consider the damage to have been caused through careless or negligent actions rather than intentional. Accordingly, the tenant’s liability on each of the damaged items/areas must be measured against section 49B(3)(a) RTA set out at [10] above and section 49B(3A)(a) RTA set out at [11] above.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation to the landlord’s claims for damage to the bedroom door, garage carpet, bedroom carpet, walls throughout the house, and dining floor. 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.
Ultimately, I consider that had the landlord sought insurance cover, it is likely to have been accepted subject to the applicable excess for the repairs to the dining floor, garage carpet and bedroom carpet of $800.00 each. I accordingly limit the landlord’s claim for repairs to the dining floor, garage carpet and bedroom carpet to the lesser of the insurance excess of $800.00 respectively.
As for the damage to the walls, I have limited the tenant's liability to four weeks' rent (see section 49B(3)(b) RTA) totalling $3,460.00, based on the weekly rent of $865.00.
I also allow the landlord’s claim for $300.00 for repairs to holes in the bedroom door.
Only the amounts ordered are proved. Is the landlord in breach of section 16A(1) RTA by not appointing an agent while overseas?
Rachel Penney claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
During the tenancy, the landlord was out of New Zealand for more than 21 days from 17 June 2024 to 9 July 2024. As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have taken into account the impact of the breach on the tenant, the landlord’s explanation for the failure to appoint an agent, the fact that the landlord was still contactable by email, and the relatively short duration of the breach (of about 21 days). I consider an award of exemplary damages on the lower end of the scale appropriate in the circumstances.
Having regard to the respective awards for and against the parties, the bond is now paid out to the landlord and a monetary order for the remaining balance is ordered as set out in the table above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957955 — Property damage at 35 Magnolia Avenue, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957955 — Property damage at 35 Magnolia Avenue, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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

Frequently asked questions