What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985331?

The tribunal order states: Ameliea Arama Mihi Mana must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4985331?

Cleaning: $135.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $92.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $299.48 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $72.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11443116-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985331?

The tribunal order states: Ameliea Arama Mihi Mana must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4985331?

Cleaning: $135.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $92.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.54 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $299.48 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $72.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11443116-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Bishops Lane, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985331 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985331 — net $742.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$299.48	Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal	$72.40	Rubbish removal
Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1	$47.54	Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1
Repairs - hole in wall of bedroom 2	$47.54	Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1
Repairs - hole in wall of living room	$47.54	Repairs - hole in wall of living room
Cleaning	$135.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$92.52	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$742.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$742.52

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided invoices and photos to evidence the need for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing, as well as the respective costs incurred. These costs are considered reasonable and are awarded.

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.

Three rooms had a hole in a wall (bedrooms 1 and 2, and the living room).

The landlord provided photos in support. It agreed the evidence of two holes in one room was not proven and that claim was reduced to a single hole cost as ordered.

The landlord sought $47.54 for the cost of repair of each hole. The holes were of a significant size and the cost is reasonable.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The costs awarded are for repairs only and not any subsequent repainting.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985331 — net $742.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$299.48	Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal	$72.40	Rubbish removal
Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1	$47.54	Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1
Repairs - hole in wall of bedroom 2	$47.54	Repairs – hole in wall of bedroom 1
Repairs - hole in wall of living room	$47.54	Repairs - hole in wall of living room
Cleaning	$135.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$92.52	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$742.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$742.52

Order

Ameliea Arama Mihi Mana must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $742.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided invoices and photos to evidence the need for cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing, as well as the respective costs incurred. These costs are considered reasonable and are awarded.
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.
Three rooms had a hole in a wall (bedrooms 1 and 2, and the living room).
The landlord provided photos in support. It agreed the evidence of two holes in one room was not proven and that claim was reduced to a single hole cost as ordered.
The landlord sought $47.54 for the cost of repair of each hole. The holes were of a significant size and the cost is reasonable.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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. The costs awarded are for repairs only and not any subsequent repainting.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985331 — Property damage at 8 Bishops Lane, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985331 — Property damage at 8 Bishops Lane, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

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