What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5068928 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5068928?

____________________________________…: $580.00 awarded to landlord; Bailiff’S Eviction Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4919993 D…: $1,771.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,546.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,242.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,470.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068928?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488555-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5068928 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5068928?

____________________________________…: $580.00 awarded to landlord; Bailiff’S Eviction Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4919993 D…: $1,771.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,546.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,242.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,470.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068928?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488555-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5068928 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068928 — net $11,295.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 October 2024	$1,242.86	Rent arrears to 01 October 2024
Previous order application 4919993 dated 09/09/2024	$1,771.23	Previous order application 4919993 dated 09/09/2024
Repairs	$5,546.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,470.00	Rubbish removal
Bailiff’s eviction fee	$258.00	Bailiff’s eviction fee
__________________________________________________________________________________ 50689282 One weeks rent	$580.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 50689282 One weeks rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,295.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,295.09

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5068928 — net $11,295.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 October 2024	$1,242.86	Rent arrears to 01 October 2024
Previous order application 4919993 dated 09/09/2024	$1,771.23	Previous order application 4919993 dated 09/09/2024
Repairs	$5,546.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,470.00	Rubbish removal
Bailiff’s eviction fee	$258.00	Bailiff’s eviction fee
__________________________________________________________________________________ 50689282 One weeks rent	$580.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 50689282 One weeks rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,295.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,295.09

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Raewyn Simon must pay [The landlord/s] $11,295.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 09 September 2024 under application NZTT 4919993.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 23 February 2015. On 09 September 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears effective 15 September 2024. The tenant failed to leave the property and was evicted by the bailiff on 01 October 2024. The landlord entered a new tenancy on 07 October 2024.
On 13 November 2024, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, compensation, damages, an order for disposal of goods, the bailiffs fee, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
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 was terminated by the Tribunal effective 15 September 2024. The Tribunal awarded rent arrears to that date. The tenant failed to leave and was evicted on 01 October 2024. The landlord is seeking the additional rent arrears from 15 September 2024 to 01 October 2024 and reimbursement of the bailiff’s fee. The landlord has provided rent records and proof of the bailiff’s fee. The amount claimed is awarded.

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 and remove all rubbish.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The property was built in the 1950’s and consists of three bedrooms, kitchen/ dining room, lounge, toilet, bathroom, and a laundry, which has a second toilet. There are some photographs of the property taken at the commencement of the tenancy. There is no pre tenancy checklist. The landlord states that it was completed but then stolen from their vehicle which was parked outside the property.
Having considered the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. It appears they vacated the property in haste. The landlord completed the cleaning themselves and is claiming 18 hours labour at $23.15 per hour, plus cleaning materials of $450.00. However, I am not satisfied that this award is justified. Based on the evidence, I award the landlord cleaning costs of $400.00.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord agreed on a period in which the tenant was to collect the goods, but the tenant failed to collect the goods within that time.
The landlord has produced photographs of rubbish and other household items left inside and outside, along with a list. The items include a couch, recliner chair, coffee table, bedroom furniture, small freezer, bookshelf, blender, and a vehicle.
The items are clearly rubbish and have no monetary value. The vehicle is completely wrecked and has no wheels.
The landlord may dispose of the rubbish and the vehicle as they see fit.
I award the landlord $470.00 for the skip hire and $1,000.00 labour to remove the rubbish and wrecked vehicle. Law – damage
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.
Fair wear and tear can be 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).
If it is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Damage
The landlord has broken the damage down room by room and produced bundles of photographs for each room, along with a corresponding list outlining the damage claimed. There is no pre tenancy checklist. Each bundle contains one or two photographs showing the room at the commencement of the tenancy.
In each case, I have considered the photographic evidence and made a before and after comparison. Where I am satisfied that a proper before and after comparison can be made, and that the damage has more likely than not occurred during the tenancy, I have then gone onto consider fair wear and tear.
As stated, the property was built in the 1950’s. The landlord states they have owned the property for about a decade, with no improvements made during that period. The photographs indicate that the property retains most of its original fixtures and fittings.
Determining the appropriate amount to award for damages has been challenging. The landlord engaged an electrician, glazier, plumber, and handy person, but completed most of the repairs themselves. The landlord has produced invoices from the tradespeople and receipts for materials they purchased.
However, unlike the damage, the monetary claim is not broken down room by room, and the tradespeople’s invoices list all work completed without specifying individual rooms. In total, the landlord is claiming $4,028.13 for their own labour (175 hours at the rate of $23.15 per hour), and $6,816.89 for the tradespeople and materials.
The monetary awards made are based on the evidence, and where appropriate consider betterment. Toilet
The landlord claims that the toilet door, light switch, and toilet bowl were damaged.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the toilet door has been damaged, and that the door handle is missing. The light switch has come away from the wall. The toilet bowl has large hairline cracks in it. However, considering the age of the toilet, I am not satisfied that the damage to the bowl is more than fair wear and tear.
I award $300.00 to repair the damage proven. Bathroom
The landlord claims the sink basin was damaged by cigarette burns, there are holes in the wall by the taps over the bath, the wall above the bath has cracks, the bathroom door was damaged, and the bathroom door handle is missing.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the basin, door, and handle were damaged during the tenancy, and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The holes near the taps appear to be caused by the taps moving, which due to the age of the taps is likely fair wear and tear, as are the cracks or gaps between the wall and ceiling, which appear to be attributable to subsidence.
The invoices and receipts produced suggest that that a replacement vanity was $257.00 with installation costs of $150.00. The repairs to the door were completed by the landlord. I award the landlord $200.00 to repair the door.
The basin and vanity were at least 50 years old at the commencement of the tenancy. Considering betterment, I reduce the claim by 50% and award the landlord $200.00 toward the replacement of the vanity. The total amount awarded for the bathroom is $400.00. Laundry
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage to the door and a hole in the wall above the laundry tub, that the tenant removed the toilet roll holder, and that they removed the cover to the power meter board.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the damage to the wall and the door, and that they are responsible for removal of the meter board cover. I am not satisfied regarding the toilet roll holder.
I award the landlord $300.00 to repair the damage to the door and the hole in the wall, and $150.00 for the electrician to check the meter board and reattach the cover, a total of $450.00. Master bedroom
The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage to the bedroom door, frame, and handle, a hole in the wall under the window, a broken window, and missing drapes, net curtains, and curtain rails. The landlord also claims that the walls had several scratches and other minor damage.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the door, door frame, and the lock/ handle, as well as the hole in the wall under the window and the broken window. I am also satisfied that one net curtain is missing from the room. However, there is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the tenant is liable for the other damage to walls.
The landlord had six windows repaired for a total of $655.00, making the cost per window $109.00. I award the landlord $109.00 to repair the window. The other repairs in the master bedroom were completed by the landlord. I award the landlord $609.00. Kitchen
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the kitchen sink, the cupboard under the sink, and the nearby floor, holes in the walls, some of which are inside cupboards, the main kitchen door, and a missing handle on the door to the hot water cylinder.
The kitchen sink is made from stainless steel and has puncture holes in the bottom and sides. The landlord states that water has leaked through these holes into the cupboard and floor beneath, causing damage. The damage appears to have been gradual. The landlord states that during routine inspections, the sink was full of dishes, and the floor beneath obscured by a mat. The kitchen door has been roughly repaired by the tenant.
I am satisfied that the damage to the sink, cupboard, and floor occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied regarding the door and the missing handle. However, I am not satisfied regarding the other damage claimed, as there is insufficient evidence to make a proper before and after comparison.
The landlord states that the plumber advised replacing the kitchen sink. The landlord declined this recommendation and instead applied fibreglass patches underneath, sanded, and repainted the cupboard, and sanded and painted the floor, which had been polished and stained. The landlord also completed repairs to the doors.
I award the landlord $500.00 to repair the damage in the kitchen. Hallway
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the door to the linen cupboard and inside the linen cupboard. The landlord also claims that the tenant damaged the polished wooden floor and a wall in the hallway near the kitchen.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for damage to the door to the linen cupboard but not for damage inside the cupboard. The tenancy lasted over nine years. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage to the floors are more than fair wear and tear. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the tenant is liable for the other damage claimed.
I award the landlord $300.00 to repair the proven damage in the hallway. Livingroom
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the main door and frame, walls, the fireplace, floor, missing nets, drapes, and curtain rails, and a broken window.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for damage to the door and door frame. There are several small holes in walls. The nets, and curtains, and curtain rails shown in the pre tenancy photographs are missing. The fireplace surround has been roughly painted over, along with the wall behind. However, I am not satisfied regarding the broken window or the floor.
I award the landlord $1,000.00 to repair the damage proven in the living room. Bedroom toward the street
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage to the walls, the door and door frame, a hole in the wardrobe floor, a missing wardrobe door, and the floor.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for damage to the main door and door frame, and that the wardrobe door is missing. I am not satisfied regarding the damage to walls, the hole in the floor of the wardrobe or the floor itself.
I award the landlord $228.00 to replace the door and $500.00 to repair the other damage proven, a total of $728.00. Back bedroom
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for a hole in the wall near the wardrobe, a hole in the wall under the window, a missing ceiling light fixture, damage to the main door and the frame, damage to the wardrobe door, and a broken window.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the main door and frame, damage to the wardrobe door, the missing light fixture, and the broken window.
I award the landlord $109.00 to repair the window, and $500.00 to repair the other damaged proven, a total of $609.00. Front door
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the front door which was beyond repair and was replaced with a second-hand door costing $650.00.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the door was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded.
The landlord states that after the door was repaired, former occupants of the property returned after the end of the tenancy and damaged the door. This damage does not arise from the tenancy agreement, and if the landlord wishes to pursue this matter, it is a civil dispute or matter for the police. Rent reimbursement.
The landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement on 07 October 2024. The landlord stated that, in acknowledgement of the property’s condition, they reduced the rent until all repairs were completed and the rubbish and other items had been removed. Initially, it appeared that the landlord was seeking reimbursement for that reduction.
However, during the hearing the landlord advised that they were seeking compensation for one weeks rent from the end of the tenancy to the commencement of the new tenancy during which time the most urgent repairs were completed. In the circumstances I consider that this is appropriate, and I award the landlord one weeks rent. Other monetary order
On 09 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 15 September 2024, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was released to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068928 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068928 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions