What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993808 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4993808?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993808?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11559890-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993808 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4993808?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993808?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11559890-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1A Glenelg Street, Bradford, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993808 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Katerina Garner must pay [The landlord/s] $3,271.62 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,455.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The application for further compensation of $6,868.83 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
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 periodic tenancy began on 26/3/2021.
At the time the tenancy ended the weekly rent was $590.00.00

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14/8/2024.
The tenant disputed the rent arrears.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing, considering the need for 28 days notice.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed compensation of $455.15 as follows: a. $133.40 cleaning, b. $293.25 lawns, c. $28.50 replacement light bulbs
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit reports with photographs and invoices.
While the tenant agreed that the lawn had been damaged, she disputed the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
I am persuaded, just, by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the lawn needed repaired and light bulbs replaced.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
The landlord sought compensation of $8,686.66 as follows: a. $1,000.00 insurance excess for shower repairs, replacement and laying of carpets, b. $4,425.78 for gib stopping and painting of walls and paint, c. $258.75 for repairs to a ranch slider, d. $115.00 for replacement of a kitchen blind, e. $76.08 for gate repairs and a bolt, f. $368.00 for replacement of a damaged microwave, g. $2,443.05 for installation of a new heat pump.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a statement from an electrician about the heat pump as well as photographs and invoices.
Apart from the damage to the shower wall the tenant denied any other damage, which she felt was due to wear and tear.
In support of her position the tenant called three witnesses to give evidence about the state of the premises.
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.
I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to the shower, carpets, ranch slider, gate, kitchen blind and microwave.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
However, I consider the landlord has failed to prove to the necessary standard that the damage to the walls and heat pump was more than wear and tear.
I have taken into account that the tenant undertook painting as requested by the landlord before the tenancy ended and the heat pump required repairs on several occasions throughout the tenancy.
The claims for compensation for the walls and heat pump fail.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful.
Suppression is granted pursuant to section 95A because the landlord was partly successful, and I consider it is in her interests to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993808 — Rent arrears at 1A Glenelg Street, Bradford, Dunedin 9011

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993808 — Rent arrears at 1A Glenelg Street, Bradford, Dunedin 9011

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?