What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007788?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Osborne, Poutai Mattews, Brendonjoe Osborne-Rewha and Tatiana

How much money was awarded in case 5007788?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $623.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Basin: $314.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Food Scraps Bin: $27.10 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $2,135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007788?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Osborne, Poutai Mattews, Brendonjoe Osborne-Rewha and Tatiana

How much money was awarded in case 5007788?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $623.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Basin: $314.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Food Scraps Bin: $27.10 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $2,135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

337A Cambridge Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007788 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007788 — net $854.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 August 2024	$623.43	Rent arrears to 13 August 2024
Rubbish removal	$402.50	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries	$5.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls and doors	$2,135.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Replace bathroom basin	$314.10	Replace bathroom basin
Replace food scraps bin	$27.10	Replace food scraps bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$854.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$854.13

Order

Sarah Osborne, Poutai Mattews, Brendonjoe Osborne-Rewha and Tatiana Osborne-Rewha must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Yang $854.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (5923691-002) to Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Yang immediately.

Reasons

Mr Wang appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 13 August 2023 and ended on 13 August 2024.
On 18 September 2024, the landlord filed a claim for vacated rent arrears and that the tenant had: i. Failed to remove all rubbish, ii. Failed to replace two light bulbs, iii. Failed to return the keys, iv. Failed to account for the council proved food scraps bin, v. Damaged the basin in the bathroom, vi. Damaged walls and doors.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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) of the Act.
The property consists of a four-bedroom house with kitchen, lounge / dining room, and toilet, along with a single room sleep out that has its own bathroom. The landlord has produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, showing the interior of both the main house and sleep out, as well as the grounds of the property. These were taken by Mr Wang on 13 August 2024. They show items of household rubbish left scattered around the grounds including full council rubbish bins and two piles of garden waste.
The tenant was allowed to keep a dog. A dog kennel built by the tenant against one of the boundary fences was left behind and had to be dismantled and removed. A photograph has been produced showing the keys provided at the commencement of the tenancy. These were not returned. The property had two sets of council supplied general waste, general recycling, glass recycling, and food scrap bins. One of the food scrap bins was missing at the end. The photographs show two missing standard light bulbs in the lounge, which were working at the commencement. The bulbs have been removed.
The landlord is claiming $402.50 to remove the rubbish, which includes dismantling and disposing of the kennel, $200.00 to re- key the locks, $5.00 to replace the missing light bulbs, and $27.10 to replace the food scraps bin.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish, failed to return the keys, and failed to account for the missing light bulbs and food scarps bin. The compensation claimed is reasonable and is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming $2,185.00 to repair minor damage to walls and doors throughout the property, including replacing a missing door in the sleepout, and $349.00 to replace the basin in main bathroom. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
“Fair wear and tear” are generally described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
When awarding compensation, the Tribunal must consider 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 and betterment, the Tribunal into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan. Walls and doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing the damaged areas at both the commencement and end of the tenancy. In each case, apart from one area of damage in the fourth bedroom, I am satisfied that the Tribunal is able to make a proper objective before and after comparison. The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The damage is relatively minor but widespread, consisting of small holes, nicks, scratches, scrapes, pens drawings, and dents. The tenant has attempted to repair some damage but used mismatched paint. There is also a missing door in the sleepout. The property was built in the 1950’s. Mr Wang states that the owners purchased the property in early 2022, and the interior was repainted shortly before the commencement of the tenancy. The colour scheme is unusual for a rented property, featuring bright red, blue, and pink walls. I make a small deduction of $50.00 to account for the damage that I cannot be satisfied occurred during the tenancy. The paint on the walls was relatively new and only the affected areas were repaired, and spot painted. I therefore make no deduction for betterment. Bathroom basin
The basin in the main bathroom has a large crack in the bottom, consistent with a heavy object being dropped. I am satisfied that this has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage would have affected the functioning of the basin, and I am unsure how the tenant would have been able to use it. The basin is not an original feature and appears to date from the turn of the last century. Pre tenancy photographs of the basin show signs of wear and tear consistent with the basins age. The landlord states they were able to source a replacement basin without replacing the entire unit, which saved costs. Taking betterment into account I reduce the amount claimed by 10%. Costs.
Because Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Yang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord, although substantially successful, does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007788 — net $854.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 August 2024	$623.43	Rent arrears to 13 August 2024
Rubbish removal	$402.50	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries	$5.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Lock/key replacement	$200.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls and doors	$2,135.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Replace bathroom basin	$314.10	Replace bathroom basin
Replace food scraps bin	$27.10	Replace food scraps bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$854.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$854.13

Order

Sarah Osborne, Poutai Mattews, Brendonjoe Osborne-Rewha and Tatiana Osborne-Rewha must pay Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Yang $854.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (5923691-002) to Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Yang immediately.

Reasons

Mr Wang appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 13 August 2023 and ended on 13 August 2024.
On 18 September 2024, the landlord filed a claim for vacated rent arrears and that the tenant had: i. Failed to remove all rubbish, ii. Failed to replace two light bulbs, iii. Failed to return the keys, iv. Failed to account for the council proved food scraps bin, v. Damaged the basin in the bathroom, vi. Damaged walls and doors.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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) of the Act.
The property consists of a four-bedroom house with kitchen, lounge / dining room, and toilet, along with a single room sleep out that has its own bathroom. The landlord has produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, showing the interior of both the main house and sleep out, as well as the grounds of the property. These were taken by Mr Wang on 13 August 2024. They show items of household rubbish left scattered around the grounds including full council rubbish bins and two piles of garden waste.
The tenant was allowed to keep a dog. A dog kennel built by the tenant against one of the boundary fences was left behind and had to be dismantled and removed. A photograph has been produced showing the keys provided at the commencement of the tenancy. These were not returned. The property had two sets of council supplied general waste, general recycling, glass recycling, and food scrap bins. One of the food scrap bins was missing at the end. The photographs show two missing standard light bulbs in the lounge, which were working at the commencement. The bulbs have been removed.
The landlord is claiming $402.50 to remove the rubbish, which includes dismantling and disposing of the kennel, $200.00 to re- key the locks, $5.00 to replace the missing light bulbs, and $27.10 to replace the food scraps bin.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish, failed to return the keys, and failed to account for the missing light bulbs and food scarps bin. The compensation claimed is reasonable and is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming $2,185.00 to repair minor damage to walls and doors throughout the property, including replacing a missing door in the sleepout, and $349.00 to replace the basin in main bathroom. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
“Fair wear and tear” are generally described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
When awarding compensation, the Tribunal must consider 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 and betterment, the Tribunal into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan. Walls and doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing the damaged areas at both the commencement and end of the tenancy. In each case, apart from one area of damage in the fourth bedroom, I am satisfied that the Tribunal is able to make a proper objective before and after comparison. The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The damage is relatively minor but widespread, consisting of small holes, nicks, scratches, scrapes, pens drawings, and dents. The tenant has attempted to repair some damage but used mismatched paint. There is also a missing door in the sleepout. The property was built in the 1950’s. Mr Wang states that the owners purchased the property in early 2022, and the interior was repainted shortly before the commencement of the tenancy. The colour scheme is unusual for a rented property, featuring bright red, blue, and pink walls. I make a small deduction of $50.00 to account for the damage that I cannot be satisfied occurred during the tenancy. The paint on the walls was relatively new and only the affected areas were repaired, and spot painted. I therefore make no deduction for betterment. Bathroom basin
The basin in the main bathroom has a large crack in the bottom, consistent with a heavy object being dropped. I am satisfied that this has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage would have affected the functioning of the basin, and I am unsure how the tenant would have been able to use it. The basin is not an original feature and appears to date from the turn of the last century. Pre tenancy photographs of the basin show signs of wear and tear consistent with the basins age. The landlord states they were able to source a replacement basin without replacing the entire unit, which saved costs. Taking betterment into account I reduce the amount claimed by 10%. Costs.
Because Utrust Property Management Limited as Agent for Yang Yang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord, although substantially successful, does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007788 — Property damage at 337A Cambridge Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007788 — Property damage at 337A Cambridge Road, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions