What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025050 about?

The tribunal order states: An order is made for name suppression of [The landlord/s] and any of its

How much money was awarded in case 5025050?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,527.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,613.93 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $113.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025050?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11462800-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025050 about?

The tribunal order states: An order is made for name suppression of [The landlord/s] and any of its

How much money was awarded in case 5025050?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,527.03 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,613.93 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $113.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025050?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11462800-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5025050 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025050 — net $6,184.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$1,527.03	Window repairs
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Repairs	$2,613.93	Repairs
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,500.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
missing smoke alarms	$113.85	missing smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,184.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,184.31

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

An order for termination of the tenancy was made by the Tribunal on 15 August 2024. The grounds of the termination were multiple failures to comply with 14 day notices concerning the tenant’s activities at the premises.

This is a second application and the landlord now seeks damages 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Belongings were left behind which the tenant no longer wanted which were worthless.

These premises were near new when the tenant moved in. She was only the second tenant at the premises, which she lived in with her child.

Photographs were shown to be which prove the premises were left in a messy and filthy condition on termination, with damage to the premises and a lot of drug paraphernalia everywhere.

Smoke alarms had been removed and were missing. I allow the landlord $113.85 for their replacement.

I allow the landlord’s claim for $402.50 for cleaning. I do not allow the additional cleaning that was sought, for “deep cleaning”, as I consider the tenant’s obligation is only to restore the premise to a reasonable condition, not to deep clean it to a state where a new tenant could be installed.

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.

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.

The following damage was intentionally caused during the tenancy: a) Holes in the walls b) Damages to a glass sliding door c) Damages caused by nail holes d) Damage caused by stabbing with a knife e) Damage to doors f) Repairs to lights, a door handle, mouldy silicone in shower and door stoppers g) Damage to the carpet

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered for items 17 (a) to (f) is $2,613.93 inclusive of GST.

The amount ordered for the carpet replacement is $1500. I have not allowed the full amount claimed here because I need to take into account depreciation of the carpet, which by now would otherwise have been five years old.

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 [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord is also entitled to name suppression, as it has been successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025050 — net $6,184.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$1,527.03	Window repairs
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Repairs	$2,613.93	Repairs
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,500.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
missing smoke alarms	$113.85	missing smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,184.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,184.31

Order

An order is made for name suppression of [The landlord/s] and any of its identifying details.
Waiata Gage must pay [The landlord/s] $6,184.31 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
An order for termination of the tenancy was made by the Tribunal on 15 August 2024. The grounds of the termination were multiple failures to comply with 14 day notices concerning the tenant’s activities at the premises.
This is a second application and the landlord now seeks damages 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Belongings were left behind which the tenant no longer wanted which were worthless.
These premises were near new when the tenant moved in. She was only the second tenant at the premises, which she lived in with her child.
Photographs were shown to be which prove the premises were left in a messy and filthy condition on termination, with damage to the premises and a lot of drug paraphernalia everywhere.
Smoke alarms had been removed and were missing. I allow the landlord $113.85 for their replacement.
I allow the landlord’s claim for $402.50 for cleaning. I do not allow the additional cleaning that was sought, for “deep cleaning”, as I consider the tenant’s obligation is only to restore the premise to a reasonable condition, not to deep clean it to a state where a new tenant could be installed.
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.
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.
The following damage was intentionally caused during the tenancy: a) Holes in the walls b) Damages to a glass sliding door c) Damages caused by nail holes d) Damage caused by stabbing with a knife e) Damage to doors f) Repairs to lights, a door handle, mouldy silicone in shower and door stoppers g) Damage to the carpet
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered for items 17 (a) to (f) is $2,613.93 inclusive of GST.
The amount ordered for the carpet replacement is $1500. I have not allowed the full amount claimed here because I need to take into account depreciation of the carpet, which by now would otherwise have been five years old.
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 [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord is also entitled to name suppression, as it has been successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025050 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025050 — Property damage

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