What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5074510 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 5074510?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $605.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $991.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $868.72 awarded to landlord; Doors And Walls: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5074510?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5074510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11241917-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5074510 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 5074510?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $605.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $991.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $868.72 awarded to landlord; Doors And Walls: $782.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5074510?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5074510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11241917-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5074510 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5074510 — net $8,168.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 October 2024	$868.72	Rent arrears to 28 October 2024
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns and gardens	$1,380.00	Rubbish removal: and lawns and gardens
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$991.70	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement: and garage door opener	$605.00	Lock/key replacement: and garage door opener
Repairs: doors and walls	$782.00	Repairs: doors and walls
Repairs: painting	$2,000.00	Repairs: painting
Replace furnishings: curtains	$200.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Loss of rent	$1,140.00	Loss of rent
Net award	$8,168.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,168.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tracey Bell must pay [The landlord/s] $8,168.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,048.72 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

In an order dated 17 October 2024 the tenancy was terminated, and an order made for rent arrears. That was paid from the bond, leaving a balance in the bond of $1048.72. The tenant did not vacate the premises until 28 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records showing that no further rent was paid, and the amount owing as at 28 October 2024 was $868.72. That amount is ordered.

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 and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photos of the premises at the start and the end of the tenancy. They show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted a number of invoices: Busy Bee Cleaning: $1,380
This was for rubbish removal $950 +GST and lawns and garden $250 + GST, making a total of $1,380 including GST.
The photos show broken furniture, tyres, bicycles and carpet all left behind. The lawns had not been mown. There was a small overgrown garden. The invoice did not contain a breakdown of hourly rate, number of hours, actual work performed or disbursements such as tip fees. Looking at the amount of items that needed moving, it appears reasonable, but an itemised account should be submitted in future. Kells Cleaning: $1,380
This was for: Full exit cleaning for 2 days $500 + GST, oven clean $150 +GST, Carpet clean $250 + GST, ceilings $300 + GST.
The photographs show that the premises had not been cleaned or vacuumed.
The invoice submitted included removing curtains, cleaning heaters and ceilings. The property manager said that there was fly scat on the ceiling.
A landlord must expect to undertake some cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The outgoing tenant is not required to prepare the premises for the next tenant, only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Accordingly, a deduction of $380 has been made for cleaning. Gold Carpet Cleaning $250
The landlord provided a further quote for Gold Carpet Cleaning. This is for a separate greasy stain that needs treatment. A photo was provided. This will be attended to when the walls have been painted. That amount is approved. Keys and garage door opener $605
The tenant did not return the keys or garage door opener. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for lock replacement and a quote for the garage door opener. They are waiting for the garage door opener to be supplied.
The amounts ordered as outlined in the table above 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.
The landlord is claiming a number of items: Chilvers Property Maintenance $782
The landlord provided a copy of a quote for repair of 3 bedroom doors, 1 bathroom door, 1 toilet door, a damaged door frame and skirting board. The amount is $680 + GST.
The photographs show a series of poorly patched surfaces with rough applications of plaster, a hole in a door and rotten skirting board. The landlord explained that this was where the tenant’s washing machine had been. There has been water damage. There is also a door frame showing a lumpy application of plaster. The ingoing photos show no such damage.
I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount of $782 ordered is proved. Clear Cut Painting and Decorating $19090
The ingoing inspection photos show the walls in good condition. In the exit photos there are some spots where the wallpaper is missing. It is coming away at the joins in places and there are several large mouldy patches. The landlord said that this is more than fair wear and tear; it was caused by the way in which the tenant lived there, not opening the windows and leaving the curtains drawn. They were undertaking monthly inspections.
While some scattering of mould may occur during a tenancy of two years, as this one was, there is an accumulation of mould in places, including thick black patches on some areas of the skirting board. The combination of the mould and peeling wallpaper supports the landlord’s assertion that the damage is as a result of the way in which the tenant treated the property. Therefore the damage has been caused by her careless or intentional actions.
As noted above, damage is intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty.
The landlord has not yet heard if the damage will be covered by insurance. If it is, then the excess is $500 per incident. Usually, insurance companies charge the excess per room. Insurance cover is relevant if the damage is viewed as careless. In this case, the insurance excesses for one lounge and 3 bedrooms would total $2,000.
Regardless of whether the damage is caused by carelessness or intentional actions, 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.
The landlord did not know how old the wallpaper was. It was in good condition at the start of the tenancy, but it was not new. A landlord must expect to repaint and/or repaper from time to time. A tenant is not responsible for full refurbishment unless the damage is extensive and the property had been recently painted and papered before the start of the tenancy. I have decided that a reasonable contribution is $2,000. Manawatu Autoglass and Glazing: $991.70
The landlord submitted an invoice for reglazing of broken windows totalling $991.70. The photos show a number of broken windows, that were not broken at the start of the tenancy. The amount ordered is proved. Curtains 2U: $6,271.27
The landlord submitted a quote, which has been accepted for $6,271.27 for replacement curtains and a roller blind. At the end of the tenancy, the curtains were mouldy on the lining. The roller blind had been removed.
The photos of the curtains at the start of the tenancy show curtains that were not mouldy. They were also not new. There is evidence of marks or deterioration on some curtains.
The landlord did not know how old the curtains were.
It is not reasonable that the tenant pay for replacement window treatments for the whole property. According to the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guide, the estimated useful life of drapes or blinds in a rental property is 8 years. The age of these curtains in unknown, but from the photos it appears likely that they were at least that old at the start of the tenancy.
I have decided it is reasonable that the tenant contribute $200 to the cleaning or replacement of the curtains. Loss of rent: $6,270
The landlord has not tenanted the property since the tenant moved out because they need to get the painting done. There is a wait for that, as well as the garage door opener, and so the property cannot be let until then.
It is reasonable that the tenant should compensate the landlord for some loss of income as a result of her actions. However, she is not responsible for the delays in having the work done. She is ordered to pay a further 2 weeks’ rent, being a reasonable time frame for the holes to be repaired and the premises to be painted.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5074510 — net $8,168.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 October 2024	$868.72	Rent arrears to 28 October 2024
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns and gardens	$1,380.00	Rubbish removal: and lawns and gardens
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$991.70	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement: and garage door opener	$605.00	Lock/key replacement: and garage door opener
Repairs: doors and walls	$782.00	Repairs: doors and walls
Repairs: painting	$2,000.00	Repairs: painting
Replace furnishings: curtains	$200.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Loss of rent	$1,140.00	Loss of rent
Net award	$8,168.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,168.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tracey Bell must pay [The landlord/s] $8,168.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,048.72 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

In an order dated 17 October 2024 the tenancy was terminated, and an order made for rent arrears. That was paid from the bond, leaving a balance in the bond of $1048.72. The tenant did not vacate the premises until 28 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records showing that no further rent was paid, and the amount owing as at 28 October 2024 was $868.72. That amount is ordered.

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 and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photos of the premises at the start and the end of the tenancy. They show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord submitted a number of invoices: Busy Bee Cleaning: $1,380
This was for rubbish removal $950 +GST and lawns and garden $250 + GST, making a total of $1,380 including GST.
The photos show broken furniture, tyres, bicycles and carpet all left behind. The lawns had not been mown. There was a small overgrown garden. The invoice did not contain a breakdown of hourly rate, number of hours, actual work performed or disbursements such as tip fees. Looking at the amount of items that needed moving, it appears reasonable, but an itemised account should be submitted in future. Kells Cleaning: $1,380
This was for: Full exit cleaning for 2 days $500 + GST, oven clean $150 +GST, Carpet clean $250 + GST, ceilings $300 + GST.
The photographs show that the premises had not been cleaned or vacuumed.
The invoice submitted included removing curtains, cleaning heaters and ceilings. The property manager said that there was fly scat on the ceiling.
A landlord must expect to undertake some cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The outgoing tenant is not required to prepare the premises for the next tenant, only to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Accordingly, a deduction of $380 has been made for cleaning. Gold Carpet Cleaning $250
The landlord provided a further quote for Gold Carpet Cleaning. This is for a separate greasy stain that needs treatment. A photo was provided. This will be attended to when the walls have been painted. That amount is approved. Keys and garage door opener $605
The tenant did not return the keys or garage door opener. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for lock replacement and a quote for the garage door opener. They are waiting for the garage door opener to be supplied.
The amounts ordered as outlined in the table above 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.
The landlord is claiming a number of items: Chilvers Property Maintenance $782
The landlord provided a copy of a quote for repair of 3 bedroom doors, 1 bathroom door, 1 toilet door, a damaged door frame and skirting board. The amount is $680 + GST.
The photographs show a series of poorly patched surfaces with rough applications of plaster, a hole in a door and rotten skirting board. The landlord explained that this was where the tenant’s washing machine had been. There has been water damage. There is also a door frame showing a lumpy application of plaster. The ingoing photos show no such damage.
I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount of $782 ordered is proved. Clear Cut Painting and Decorating $19090
The ingoing inspection photos show the walls in good condition. In the exit photos there are some spots where the wallpaper is missing. It is coming away at the joins in places and there are several large mouldy patches. The landlord said that this is more than fair wear and tear; it was caused by the way in which the tenant lived there, not opening the windows and leaving the curtains drawn. They were undertaking monthly inspections.
While some scattering of mould may occur during a tenancy of two years, as this one was, there is an accumulation of mould in places, including thick black patches on some areas of the skirting board. The combination of the mould and peeling wallpaper supports the landlord’s assertion that the damage is as a result of the way in which the tenant treated the property. Therefore the damage has been caused by her careless or intentional actions.
As noted above, damage is intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty.
The landlord has not yet heard if the damage will be covered by insurance. If it is, then the excess is $500 per incident. Usually, insurance companies charge the excess per room. Insurance cover is relevant if the damage is viewed as careless. In this case, the insurance excesses for one lounge and 3 bedrooms would total $2,000.
Regardless of whether the damage is caused by carelessness or intentional actions, 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.
The landlord did not know how old the wallpaper was. It was in good condition at the start of the tenancy, but it was not new. A landlord must expect to repaint and/or repaper from time to time. A tenant is not responsible for full refurbishment unless the damage is extensive and the property had been recently painted and papered before the start of the tenancy. I have decided that a reasonable contribution is $2,000. Manawatu Autoglass and Glazing: $991.70
The landlord submitted an invoice for reglazing of broken windows totalling $991.70. The photos show a number of broken windows, that were not broken at the start of the tenancy. The amount ordered is proved. Curtains 2U: $6,271.27
The landlord submitted a quote, which has been accepted for $6,271.27 for replacement curtains and a roller blind. At the end of the tenancy, the curtains were mouldy on the lining. The roller blind had been removed.
The photos of the curtains at the start of the tenancy show curtains that were not mouldy. They were also not new. There is evidence of marks or deterioration on some curtains.
The landlord did not know how old the curtains were.
It is not reasonable that the tenant pay for replacement window treatments for the whole property. According to the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guide, the estimated useful life of drapes or blinds in a rental property is 8 years. The age of these curtains in unknown, but from the photos it appears likely that they were at least that old at the start of the tenancy.
I have decided it is reasonable that the tenant contribute $200 to the cleaning or replacement of the curtains. Loss of rent: $6,270
The landlord has not tenanted the property since the tenant moved out because they need to get the painting done. There is a wait for that, as well as the garage door opener, and so the property cannot be let until then.
It is reasonable that the tenant should compensate the landlord for some loss of income as a result of her actions. However, she is not responsible for the delays in having the work done. She is ordered to pay a further 2 weeks’ rent, being a reasonable time frame for the holes to be repaired and the premises to be painted.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5074510 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5074510 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions