What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985788?

The tribunal order states: Candy Sharma and Ankur Chauhan must pay Iron Bridge Property

How much money was awarded in case 4985788?

Cleaning: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: Loss: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $694.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Paint: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $680.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11403382-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985788?

The tribunal order states: Candy Sharma and Ankur Chauhan must pay Iron Bridge Property

How much money was awarded in case 4985788?

Cleaning: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: Loss: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $694.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Paint: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $680.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11403382-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 45 Amyes Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985788 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985788 — net $4,641.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance Excess x2	$1,500.00	Insurance Excess x2
Repairs: Paint	$700.00	Repairs: Paint
Carpet: Loss	$600.00	Carpet: Loss
Carpet Cleaning	$440.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$694.32	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$680.25	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,641.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,641.57

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the calls made at the scheduled time on the numbers provided to the Tribunal.

Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenants have not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenants’ absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party brining the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bring the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

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 landlord provided oral evidence supported by photographs that show that when the tenants left the property, they left many belongings behind including clothing, food and furnishings. Rubbish was strewn throughout the premises and no attempt had been made to clean the premises.

The landlord provided receipts for their claims.

The amounts ordered for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal 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.

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.

Most of the damage presented by the landlord included drawings on walls, many stains on areas of the carpet, crayon and nail polish on windowsills, and a hole in the wall. I determine this damage is well beyond fair wear and tear. The extent of the damage indicates to me that there was a degree of intention involved in the damage; that is to say, the tenant did not take reasonable precautions to ensure that damage did not occur. The tenants did not attend the hearing to give any explanation for the damage. Accordingly, I determine this damage was caused intentionally.

The landlord claimed seven lots of $750.00 insurance excess; that is one for each of seven zones. I did not find it proved that the damage in each of the zones amounted to $750.00 and I have not awarded the full $750.00 for each of the zones.

Zones 1 and 4 involved the lounge/kitchen and bedroom 1 respectively. The damage included many markings to walls, a roller blind, windowsills and bad staining to the carpets. I am persuaded the cost to repair damage in these areas would have exceeded each of the insurance excesses, and I award the full insurance excesses for these areas.

Zone 2 was the downstairs toilet and the damage apparently was a small hole in the wall. The claim for repair in this room was for $284.90. The photographs provided did not show this hole or any damage in this room. This claim was not proved.

Zone 3 was for the stairway and upstairs hall. The damage indicated included a mark on the door, stickers on a door, marks to walls and some staining on the carpet. Although I accept there was some damage to the carpet, I do not accept the stains were so bad as to warrant replacing this carpet or that overall the damage to this area was such that repairs and loss exceeds the insurance excess.

Zones 5 and 6 were for bedrooms 2 and 3 respectively. The damage included drawings and stickers on the walls and some marks on the carpet. As with zone 3, I am not persuaded the damage to the carpet was such that the carpet needed replacing, or that the loss caused by damage to the carpet and repairs to the walls exceeds the insurance excess.

Zone 7 concerned the exterior and a mark next to the entrance way. The photographs provided do not show this mark and I am not persuaded that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved.

Where the damage to each of the zones does not in my view exceed the insurance premium, I have accumulated amounts for painting and loss to the landlord for damage to the carpet, and provided a lumpsum for each of these.

I note here that the photographs provided are of the premises before the rubbish has been removed, the house cleaned, and the carpets cleaned.

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. 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.

Because Iron Bridge Property Management Limited As Agents For M & M Rastogi has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985788 — net $4,641.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance Excess x2	$1,500.00	Insurance Excess x2
Repairs: Paint	$700.00	Repairs: Paint
Carpet: Loss	$600.00	Carpet: Loss
Carpet Cleaning	$440.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$694.32	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$680.25	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,641.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,641.57

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the calls made at the scheduled time on the numbers provided to the Tribunal.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof

If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

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

The landlord provided receipts for their claims.

The amounts ordered for cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I note here that the photographs provided are of the premises before the rubbish has been removed, the house cleaned, and the carpets cleaned.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Iron Bridge Property Management Limited As Agents For M & M Rastogi has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985788 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 45 Amyes Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985788 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 45 Amyes Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

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