What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5068429?

The tribunal order states: John Heremaia must pay Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 5068429?

Property Damage: $257.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068429?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11560436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5068429?

The tribunal order states: John Heremaia must pay Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 5068429?

Property Damage: $257.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068429?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11560436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Caffray Avenue, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5068429 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068429 — net $1,057.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace curtains	$800.00	Replace curtains
Lock/key replacement	$257.60	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$1,057.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,057.60

The landlord attended the video hearing.

The tenant did not attend by teams video link nor respond to a telephone call. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.

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 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.

No evidence was provided by the landlord of the rubbish, other than an invoice from a carrier company. The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord to the usual civil standard of more likely than not. Insufficient evidence has been provided and the claim is dismissed.

The tenant did not return the keys. An invoice for $257.60 has been provided and the claim is proven.

A claim for lawn work was filed. No evidence or invoice was provided and the claim is dismissed.

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 caused during the tenancy: The curtains were removed. The landlord filed receipts for replacement curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in setting the compensation. 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.

The claim of repairs to the door is dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing the application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068429 — net $1,057.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace curtains	$800.00	Replace curtains
Lock/key replacement	$257.60	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$1,057.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,057.60

Order

John Heremaia must pay Watson Real Estate Limited T/A Landlords Link Ltd As Agent For Liz Kerwin $1,057.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not attend by teams video link nor respond to a telephone call. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
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 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.
No evidence was provided by the landlord of the rubbish, other than an invoice from a carrier company. The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord to the usual civil standard of more likely than not. Insufficient evidence has been provided and the claim is dismissed.
The tenant did not return the keys. An invoice for $257.60 has been provided and the claim is proven.
A claim for lawn work was filed. No evidence or invoice was provided and the claim is dismissed.

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 caused during the tenancy: The curtains were removed. The landlord filed receipts for replacement curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in setting the compensation. 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.
The claim of repairs to the door is dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068429 — Property damage at 37 Caffray Avenue, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068429 — Property damage at 37 Caffray Avenue, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions