What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985201 about?

The tribunal order states: Eli Jones and Matthew Whittle must pay [The landlord/s] $2,241.29

How much money was awarded in case 4985201?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $564.29 awarded to landlord; To Two Wooden Panel Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985201?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11055453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985201 about?

The tribunal order states: Eli Jones and Matthew Whittle must pay [The landlord/s] $2,241.29

How much money was awarded in case 4985201?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $564.29 awarded to landlord; To Two Wooden Panel Doors: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985201?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11055453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4A Devon Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985201 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985201 — net $2,241.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 August 2024	$564.29	Rent arrears to 8 August 2024
Repairs: to two wooden panel doors	$1,000.00	Repairs: to two wooden panel doors
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,241.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,241.29

Both parties attended the hearing.

I find the tenants had a verbally agreed tenancy that started on 5 February 2024 and ended on 8 August 2024 after the tenants gave notice. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord was not allowed to introduce new claims at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

I calculated the rent arrears to 8 August at the hearing. The landlord provided rent records. The tenants agreed they owe the money.

Did the tenants 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 (RTA).

The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed for cleaning is reasonable.

I find the two tenants named in this application are responsible for rubbish and belongings left by their flatmate. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me based on the photos provided.

The claim for keys has not been proved because there is no evidence the landlord changed the locks. This is because the landlord brought a quote to the hearing. Given that the tenancy premises can be relet without a lock change I am not persuaded there has been a loss to the landlord. This claim is dismissed.

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 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.

There is a claim for repairs to two bedroom doors. I have been provided with photos of the damage and an invoice for repairs to one of the doors in the amount of $853.88. The tenants said the doors were damaged by guests at a party. They submitted that the cost of repair was high compared with buying new doors. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find it was reasonable for the landlord to have the wood panelled bungalow doors repaired. I have allowed the full cost shown on the invoice. I have only allowed a contribution to the damage for the second door because there is no evidence the repair cost will be the same for both doors.

There is a claim for damage to the top of one of the doors. The tenants said they never noticed damage on the top of the door. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord did not complete a property condition report at the start of the tenancy. This means the landlord cannot prove the damage happened during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

There is a claim for removing the sticky tape from a window surround and painting. The tenants said the paint around the window was old and worn when the tenancy started. This claim is not allowed. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Allowing a claim for painting would result in an improvement and the landlord would be better off. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I have suppressed the landlord names because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants are named because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985201 — net $2,241.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 August 2024	$564.29	Rent arrears to 8 August 2024
Repairs: to two wooden panel doors	$1,000.00	Repairs: to two wooden panel doors
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,241.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,241.29

Order

Eli Jones and Matthew Whittle must pay [The landlord/s] $2,241.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
I find the tenants had a verbally agreed tenancy that started on 5 February 2024 and ended on 8 August 2024 after the tenants gave notice. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord was not allowed to introduce new claims at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

I calculated the rent arrears to 8 August at the hearing. The landlord provided rent records. The tenants agreed they owe the money.

Did the tenants 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 (RTA).
The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed for cleaning is reasonable.
I find the two tenants named in this application are responsible for rubbish and belongings left by their flatmate. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me based on the photos provided.
The claim for keys has not been proved because there is no evidence the landlord changed the locks. This is because the landlord brought a quote to the hearing. Given that the tenancy premises can be relet without a lock change I am not persuaded there has been a loss to the landlord. This claim is dismissed.

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 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.
There is a claim for repairs to two bedroom doors. I have been provided with photos of the damage and an invoice for repairs to one of the doors in the amount of $853.88. The tenants said the doors were damaged by guests at a party. They submitted that the cost of repair was high compared with buying new doors. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find it was reasonable for the landlord to have the wood panelled bungalow doors repaired. I have allowed the full cost shown on the invoice. I have only allowed a contribution to the damage for the second door because there is no evidence the repair cost will be the same for both doors.
There is a claim for damage to the top of one of the doors. The tenants said they never noticed damage on the top of the door. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord did not complete a property condition report at the start of the tenancy. This means the landlord cannot prove the damage happened during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for removing the sticky tape from a window surround and painting. The tenants said the paint around the window was old and worn when the tenancy started. This claim is not allowed. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Allowing a claim for painting would result in an improvement and the landlord would be better off. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have suppressed the landlord names because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants are named because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985201 — Property damage at 4A Devon Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985201 — Property damage at 4A Devon Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

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?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions