What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4958833?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Hopkins to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Rachel Taylor

How much money was awarded in case 4958833?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Hinges: $52.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $118.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4958833?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4958833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4958833?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Hopkins to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Rachel Taylor

How much money was awarded in case 4958833?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Hinges: $52.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $118.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4958833?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4958833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Beaven Street, Marton, Marton 4710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4958833 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4958833 — net $287.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wardrobe damage	$118.50	Repairs: wardrobe damage
Replace smoke alarms	$30.00	Replace smoke alarms
Rubbish removal	$10.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: kitchen hinges	$52.33	Repairs: kitchen hinges
Garden work	$50.00	Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$287.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$287.83

Sarah Hopkins to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Rachel Taylor $287.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $287.83 (3235762-011) to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Rachel Taylor immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $304.48 (3235762-011) to Sarah Hopkins immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord and the tenant’s representative confirmed that Sarah Hopkins was the sole tenant responsible for the amounts it was seeking.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for the refund of the bond.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant accepted that she left behind a small, plastic sandpit and that a smoke alarm was removed from the ceiling. The tenant objected to the amount being claimed by the landlord in compensation. The tenant claimed that the garden was left in a reasonable condition.

Both parties provided limited photographic evidence which the Tribunal has considered.

The Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for replacing the smoke alarm, the removal of the sandpit and the spraying of a small area of weeds in the garden.

The landlord’s invoice for the smoke alarm does not specify how much related to reinstallation. Instead, the invoice indicates that it is for an annual maintenance contract. It is appropriate to award a very modest amount for the reinstallation.

Similarly, amounts commensurate with the evidence supporting the garden spraying and the removal of the sandpit are awarded to the landlord which are not the full amounts claimed. The amounts awarded are fair and reasonable for the minor work involved based on the very limited photographic evidence.

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 tenant accepted liability for the repair of a wardrobe and this sum is awarded to the landlord.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that hinges to cupboards in the kitchen were broken. The landlord advised that this happened in the month between the last inspection and the tenant vacating. The landlord advised that it was not notified of the damage by the tenant. The landlord gave evidence that the cupboards were less than two years’ old. It noted that this damage was similar to that caused to the bedroom wardrobe.

The tenant claimed that the hinges broke through fair wear and tear.

The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the hinges were broken carelessly by the tenant and not because of fair wear and tear.

The amount ordered is proven.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded in its application, the application fee is to be reimbursed to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4958833 — net $287.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wardrobe damage	$118.50	Repairs: wardrobe damage
Replace smoke alarms	$30.00	Replace smoke alarms
Rubbish removal	$10.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: kitchen hinges	$52.33	Repairs: kitchen hinges
Garden work	$50.00	Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$287.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$287.83

Order

Sarah Hopkins to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Rachel Taylor $287.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $287.83 (3235762-011) to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Rachel Taylor immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $304.48 (3235762-011) to Sarah Hopkins immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord and the tenant’s representative confirmed that Sarah Hopkins was the sole tenant responsible for the amounts it was seeking.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the refund of the bond.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepted that she left behind a small, plastic sandpit and that a smoke alarm was removed from the ceiling. The tenant objected to the amount being claimed by the landlord in compensation. The tenant claimed that the garden was left in a reasonable condition.
Both parties provided limited photographic evidence which the Tribunal has considered.
The Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for replacing the smoke alarm, the removal of the sandpit and the spraying of a small area of weeds in the garden.
The landlord’s invoice for the smoke alarm does not specify how much related to reinstallation. Instead, the invoice indicates that it is for an annual maintenance contract. It is appropriate to award a very modest amount for the reinstallation.
Similarly, amounts commensurate with the evidence supporting the garden spraying and the removal of the sandpit are awarded to the landlord which are not the full amounts claimed. The amounts awarded are fair and reasonable for the minor work involved based on the very limited photographic evidence.
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 tenant accepted liability for the repair of a wardrobe and this sum is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that hinges to cupboards in the kitchen were broken. The landlord advised that this happened in the month between the last inspection and the tenant vacating. The landlord advised that it was not notified of the damage by the tenant. The landlord gave evidence that the cupboards were less than two years’ old. It noted that this damage was similar to that caused to the bedroom wardrobe.
The tenant claimed that the hinges broke through fair wear and tear.
The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the hinges were broken carelessly by the tenant and not because of fair wear and tear.
The amount ordered is proven.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded in its application, the application fee is to be reimbursed to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4958833 — Property damage at 7 Beaven Street, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4958833 — Property damage at 7 Beaven Street, Marton, Marton 4710

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions