How much money was awarded in case 5007890?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Bar: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Carpets And Drapes: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Exterior Lights: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4918838 D…: $2,504.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Balustrade: $1,420.00 awarded to landlord; Emergency Plumber: $372.47 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $753.09 awarded to landlord; Hot Water Cylinders: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Shower: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Wallpaper: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007890?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5007890?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Bar: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Carpets And Drapes: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Exterior Lights: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4918838 D…: $2,504.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Balustrade: $1,420.00 awarded to landlord; Emergency Plumber: $372.47 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $753.09 awarded to landlord; Hot Water Cylinders: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Shower: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Wallpaper: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007890?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

266 Pohangina Road, Ashhurst, RD 14, Ashhurst 4884 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007890 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007890 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007890 — net $19,121.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4918838 dated 02/08/2024	$2,504.01	Previous order application 4918838 dated 02/08/2024
Lock/key replacement	$245.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$2,500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00	Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: carpets and drapes	$2,000.00	carpets and drapes
Compensation: exterior lights	$500.00	exterior lights
Compensation: bar	$500.00	bar
Repairs: front door	$753.09	Repairs: front door
Repairs: internal doors	$1,050.00	Repairs: internal doors
Repairs: hot water cylinders	$4,000.00	Repairs: hot water cylinders
Repairs: wallpaper	$500.00	Repairs: wallpaper
Repairs: shower	$500.00	Repairs: shower
Repairs: balustrade	$1,420.00	Repairs: balustrade
Repairs: emergency plumber	$372.47	Repairs: emergency plumber
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,121.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,121.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jeanine Sarah Rongokea and John Murdoch must pay [The landlord/s] $19,121.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4918838 dated 02/08/2024 $2,504.01 Lock/key replacement$245.00 Cleaning$2,500.00 Rubbish removal$2,000.00 Lawns and Garden work$250.00 Compensation: carpets and drapes$2,000.00 Compensation: exterior lights$500.00 Compensation: bar$500.00 Repairs: front door$753.09 Repairs: internal doors$1,050.00 Repairs: hot water cylinders$4,000.00 Repairs: wallpaper$500.00 Repairs: shower$500.00 Repairs: balustrade$1,420.00 Repairs: emergency plumber$372.47 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$19,121.57 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$19,121.57

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee 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 landlord provided video evidence that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence shows that the tenant took what they wanted from the property and left anything else behind, including a substantial amount of rubbish. The evidence establishes that the property was in a filthy condition and that the tenant had made no attempt to clean it. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant had deliberately scattered rubbish and unhygienic items throughout the property.

The tenant did not return the keys until after the landlord had employed a locksmith to make the property secure. Given the significant damage inflicted by the tenant, this was a reasonable step to be taken by the landlord and reimbursement is appropriate in these circumstances.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. The carpets throughout much of the property had been removed and dumped outside. b. Drapes in a number of rooms. c. Exterior lighting. d. A bar. e. Two hot water cylinders had been removed.

Where chattels have not been replaced and an exact quantum of damages established, the Tribunal may award conservative sums which reflect the loss which the landlord has suffered, but not on a direct replacement value. This would have placed the landlord in a better position, with newer, more valuable chattels.

The drapes, wallpaper and carpets were more than eight years old and so had come to the end of their useful life according to the Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation schedule. It is however appropriate to award modest sums to reflect the loss of utility value because the landlord would not have had to replace them, but for the actions of the tenant.

Similarly, it is not easy to assess the value of the bar which was removed as no evidence was supplied of its market value, only of its replacement value.

It is for an applicant to establish the quantum of loss. Estimates of replacement values provide no assistance to the Tribunal in this situation where the items damaged were at the end of their economic life. It is open to the Tribunal to dismiss such an application because the applicant has not proved the quantum of their loss. However, no reasonable person could assert that the actions of the tenant have not caused the landlord loss.

Bearing in mind section 85(2) RTA which requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, while not being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities, it is appropriate that a modest award be made to the landlord, especially given the deliberate and intentional actions of the tenant in causing the landlord loss. A reasonable estimate has been made in each case.

Where the landlord has claimed for work carried out by herself or friends, amounts have been awarded at the upper end of those regularly seen by the Tribunal for clearing rubbish and cleaning properties in a similar state. An uplift has been included to reflect the large size of the property and the additional work required.

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.

There was extensive intentional damage caused during the tenancy, including: a. Holes in walls. b. The front door and three internal doors had been damaged by force, most probably kicked in. c. A broken window. d. Broken electrical switches. e. Wallpaper had been ripped from walls. f. Shower fittings had been removed and the linings damaged. g. The balustrade and pillar to the stairs had been removed. h. Carpets had been stained with animal excrement. i. As noted above, two hot water cylinders had been removed, one of them leaking water and causing water damage.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its nature and extent, the damage was intentional.

The landlord has not submitted paid invoices in relation to much of this work, only single quotes. The landlord’s representative confirmed that much of it will not be completed prior to the sale of the property.

The applicant has the burden of proving not only that she has suffered the damage, but also its extent or amount. Where repairs are not going to be undertaken by a landlord, quotations or estimates for the work are of limited use in assessing the value of damages.

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, it has considered the approximate age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord claimed that the property had diminished significantly in value because of the tenant’s deliberate actions. No evidence was submitted in support of this claim and so it cannot succeed.

However, it is clear that the landlord has suffered loss for which she should be compensated. The Tribunal has assessed each item of damage by estimating the amount of loss suffered by the landlord, taking into account the age of the items damaged or removed and the quotations supplied.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Selima Carstens has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5007890 — net $19,121.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4918838 dated 02/08/2024	$2,504.01	Previous order application 4918838 dated 02/08/2024
Lock/key replacement	$245.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$2,500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$250.00	Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: carpets and drapes	$2,000.00	carpets and drapes
Compensation: exterior lights	$500.00	exterior lights
Compensation: bar	$500.00	bar
Repairs: front door	$753.09	Repairs: front door
Repairs: internal doors	$1,050.00	Repairs: internal doors
Repairs: hot water cylinders	$4,000.00	Repairs: hot water cylinders
Repairs: wallpaper	$500.00	Repairs: wallpaper
Repairs: shower	$500.00	Repairs: shower
Repairs: balustrade	$1,420.00	Repairs: balustrade
Repairs: emergency plumber	$372.47	Repairs: emergency plumber
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,121.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,121.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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

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

Similarly, it is not easy to assess the value of the bar which was removed as no evidence was supplied of its market value, only of its replacement value.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its nature and extent, the damage was intentional.

The landlord claimed that the property had diminished significantly in value because of the tenant’s deliberate actions. No evidence was submitted in support of this claim and so it cannot succeed.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Selima Carstens has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007890 — Property damage at 266 Pohangina Road, Ashhurst, RD 14, Ashhurst 4884

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007890 — Property damage at 266 Pohangina Road, Ashhurst, RD 14, Ashhurst 4884

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