What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014229?

The tribunal order states: Shauneisha Wagenaar and Dylan McCormack must pay Claire Procter $306.67

How much money was awarded in case 5014229?

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 5014229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11433057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014229?

The tribunal order states: Shauneisha Wagenaar and Dylan McCormack must pay Claire Procter $306.67

How much money was awarded in case 5014229?

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 5014229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11433057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Len Davis Terrace, Pirimai, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014229 — Property damage

Order

Shauneisha Wagenaar and Dylan McCormack must pay Claire Procter $306.67 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by Mr McCormack.
An Order was made in respect of this tenancy on 7 August 2024 (application 4925873) requiring that the landlord pay the tenants $1,520.44. The landlord confirms that the Order has not been complied with and the sum still outstanding is incorporated into this Order.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 June 2024.
The landlord’s rent records show that rent was paid to 31 May 2024. Four days additional rent is due.
I do not find it proved that by the tenants leaving a few items in the garage for a few days after they moved out, loss of an additional 3 days’ rent was caused. The landlord moved into the premises herself.

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 txt the tenants on 4 June 2024 noting, “As for house cleaning, oven and microwave especially, can you get it done tomorrow please”
Photographs provided by the landlord from the end of the tenancy show that in oven and microwave were not left reasonably clean and cleaning of some other areas like the extractor, fridge and toilet were also required.
The landlord seeks reimbursement for cleaning costs as shown in an invoice from Carey Whalen for $555.00. I understand Ms Whalen is an acquaintance of the landlord and was staying in the property after the tenants vacated, while the landlord was away.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that she paid that amount to Ms Whalen. The question is whether that represents fair compensation for the tenants’ breach.
The tenants’ obligation is the leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not to bring them to the condition the landlord would prefer for her own occupation. Ms Whalen’s invoice appears to be for a complete clean of the whole of the premises, including deep clean of the kitchen and window cleaning.
While the evidence shows a need for additional cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonable condition after they vacated, the tenants should only be responsible for part of that total cost which I fix at $250.00 based on the evidence provided.
The $20.00 compensation claimed by the landlord for removing the items left in the garage, is reasonable.

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.
The tenants acknowledge having accidentally broken a light in the bathroom. While the tenants now question it’s quality, I am satisfied that it was damaged by the tenants and being hard wired, needed an electrician to repair it. The repair cost is proved by the invoice provided by the landlord.
The photographs provided by the landlord show that there was some wall damage to the premises that needed to be repaired. The compensation sought is reasonable and is supported by a quote provided, though the claim is for $390.00 whereas the quote is for $260.00 + GST (= $299.00).
There were quite severe scratch marks on the wooden flooring. While there may have been some wear on the floors, as is usual with polished wooden floors, the evidence persuades me that the additional damage caused during the tenancy was such that it needs repair.
The landlord claims compensation of $2,130.00 in terms of a quote provided, but the landlord has insurance with an excess of $750.00 per claim so the tenants’ liability is limited to that amount by s.49B(3).
Because Claire Procter has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Shauneisha Wagenaar and Dylan McCormack must pay Claire Procter $306.67 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by Mr McCormack.
An Order was made in respect of this tenancy on 7 August 2024 (application 4925873) requiring that the landlord pay the tenants $1,520.44. The landlord confirms that the Order has not been complied with and the sum still outstanding is incorporated into this Order.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 June 2024.
The landlord’s rent records show that rent was paid to 31 May 2024. Four days additional rent is due.
I do not find it proved that by the tenants leaving a few items in the garage for a few days after they moved out, loss of an additional 3 days’ rent was caused. The landlord moved into the premises herself.

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 txt the tenants on 4 June 2024 noting, “As for house cleaning, oven and microwave especially, can you get it done tomorrow please”
Photographs provided by the landlord from the end of the tenancy show that in oven and microwave were not left reasonably clean and cleaning of some other areas like the extractor, fridge and toilet were also required.
The landlord seeks reimbursement for cleaning costs as shown in an invoice from Carey Whalen for $555.00. I understand Ms Whalen is an acquaintance of the landlord and was staying in the property after the tenants vacated, while the landlord was away.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that she paid that amount to Ms Whalen. The question is whether that represents fair compensation for the tenants’ breach.
The tenants’ obligation is the leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not to bring them to the condition the landlord would prefer for her own occupation. Ms Whalen’s invoice appears to be for a complete clean of the whole of the premises, including deep clean of the kitchen and window cleaning.
While the evidence shows a need for additional cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonable condition after they vacated, the tenants should only be responsible for part of that total cost which I fix at $250.00 based on the evidence provided.
The $20.00 compensation claimed by the landlord for removing the items left in the garage, is reasonable.

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.
The tenants acknowledge having accidentally broken a light in the bathroom. While the tenants now question it’s quality, I am satisfied that it was damaged by the tenants and being hard wired, needed an electrician to repair it. The repair cost is proved by the invoice provided by the landlord.
The photographs provided by the landlord show that there was some wall damage to the premises that needed to be repaired. The compensation sought is reasonable and is supported by a quote provided, though the claim is for $390.00 whereas the quote is for $260.00 + GST (= $299.00).
There were quite severe scratch marks on the wooden flooring. While there may have been some wear on the floors, as is usual with polished wooden floors, the evidence persuades me that the additional damage caused during the tenancy was such that it needs repair.
The landlord claims compensation of $2,130.00 in terms of a quote provided, but the landlord has insurance with an excess of $750.00 per claim so the tenants’ liability is limited to that amount by s.49B(3).
Because Claire Procter has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014229 — Property damage at 11 Len Davis Terrace, Pirimai, Napier 4112

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014229 — Property damage at 11 Len Davis Terrace, Pirimai, Napier 4112

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?