What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4974133?

The tribunal order states: Wendy Lee Hills must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4974133?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $649.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; General: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $607.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4974133?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4974133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10983062-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4974133?

The tribunal order states: Wendy Lee Hills must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4974133?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $649.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; General: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $607.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4974133?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4974133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10983062-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 30 Treadwell Street, Naenae, Lower Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 4974133 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4974133 — net $4,333.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: & rubbish removal	$649.75	Cleaning: & rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: general	$2,800.00	Repairs: general
Replace furnishings: carpet	$607.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,333.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,333.75

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Powell and Mr Li.

There was no appearance for Ms Hills. She had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended by Tribunal Order on 11 June 2024. 1

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) RTA.

The landlord has established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They were not able to provide an ingoing inspection report as the previous property manager, RentCare, had not provided them with one. However, they took over management less than two months into the tenancy in December 2023, therefore were able to attest to the state of the property over that period.

Mr Li gave evidence that although the tenancy agreement prohibited pets, the tenants kept a dog and two cats. They were served with several 14-day notices to remedy but failed to remove the animals.

The tenancy ended by Tribunal Order and there was a short period between the making of the order and the last day of the tenancy. It appears therefore that Ms Hills just packed up and vacated, without undertaking any cleaning.

I am satisfied after careful consideration of the evidence, that reimbursement of the invoices for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal are proven in evidence and reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for having to replace the carpet and repair damages throughout the property. They say the carpet smelt so badly of animal urine that even after cleaning, it could not be lived in. The evidence is that when prospective tenants viewed the property, they commented that they could not live with such a smell.

The photos show damage throughout the premise. There are big holes in walls and doors, the dog had scratched the walls and carpet, some areas were so dirty that cleaning would not remove all marks and they had to be painted over, a cupboard handle had been smashed off, a wardrobe bar had been split and the bathroom cupboard door had been removed. 1 Pursuant to application 4899180

Mr Powell’s submission is that they are only claiming compensation for damage that was not present at their first inspection, only that that noticeably occurred over the period they were managing the tenancy.

To be successful in such a claim for compensation, a landlord must prove that the 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. The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,150 and they are not covered for pet damage. Effectively therefore, their insurer would not cover any of the damage claimed for.

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.

Having considered the damage, I am satisfied on the evidence I was provided that the majority of it occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Some of it appears to be intentionally caused, other carelessly.

The tenants were not permitted to have pets and breached that clause in their agreement. Some of the holes are very large and would have to have been caused intentionally. A large amount of the damage would have been noticeable to Mr Li when he first inspected the property in December.

In saying that, some of the damage cannot be proven to have occurred during the tenancy given the lack of an ingoing inspection report. In particular the smaller marks on walls. Compensation for those repairs is not awardable.

In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.

The owner is not aware how old the carpet and paint work is, however the carpets appear to have been in excess of 10 years old which is their expected lifespan according to current depreciation guidelines. I do accept however that they would have had some life left in them had they not suffered the urine damage.

Accordingly, I have awarded 20% of the claim for the carpet replacement on the basis that the landlord should not be placed in a better position than they would have been but for the tenant’s actions, but the carpet did need replacing at this time.

I have also reduced the amount claimed for the wall damage to reflect that the age of the paintwork is unknown and the extent of the smaller damage at the commencement of the tenancy is also unknown.

The amounts ordered are considered just pursuant to section 85 of the RTA in the circumstances and on the basis of the evidence filed.

Because Powell & Co Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4974133 — net $4,333.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: & rubbish removal	$649.75	Cleaning: & rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: general	$2,800.00	Repairs: general
Replace furnishings: carpet	$607.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,333.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,333.75

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Powell and Mr Li.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended by Tribunal Order on 11 June 2024. 1

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Mr Li gave evidence that although the tenancy agreement prohibited pets, the tenants kept a dog and two cats. They were served with several 14-day notices to remedy but failed to remove the animals.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I have also reduced the amount claimed for the wall damage to reflect that the age of the paintwork is unknown and the extent of the smaller damage at the commencement of the tenancy is also unknown.

The amounts ordered are considered just pursuant to section 85 of the RTA in the circumstances and on the basis of the evidence filed.

Because Powell & Co Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4974133 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 30 Treadwell Street, Naenae, Lower Hutt

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4974133 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 30 Treadwell Street, Naenae, Lower Hutt

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