What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5092588 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 5092588?

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 5092588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12592954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5092588 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 5092588?

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 5092588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12592954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5092588 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
KAYLA LEAH COLLINSON KHAINE must pay [The landlord/s] $7,440.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 16 December 2024 under this application.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with this application in accordance with service provisions set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
This matter first came before the Tribunal on 16 December 2024. An order was made for immediate termination and an order was made in favour of the landlord in the sum of $3,281.29 being rent arrears to that date ($3,254.29), together with the filing fee ($27.00). This previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The Tribunal noted at the initial hearing that the landlord had conducted a property inspection and found the tenancy property neglected and unsafe and full of debris, rubbish, furniture overturned, polished floors splattered with paint and walls partly painted. There appeared to be evidence of drug use, weapons and additional people living at the property.
The initial hearing was expedited due to the circumstances of this tenancy. The balance of the landlord’s claims were adjourned for further hearing and for the filing of additional evidence, including insurance evidence.
The landlord’s additional claims were considered at the hearing today.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord explained that the bailiff took possession of property around midday on 18 December 2024. The landlord is therefore entitled to rent for an additional day, being $105.71.
The landlord produced outstanding invoices owing at the end of the tenancy. I have reviewed those invoices and find the total sum owing (after deduction of late payment penalties and the paper invoice fee which are the landlord’s responsibility) to be $679.92.

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) RTA.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos showing huge amounts or rubbish piled up outside and in the garden. The landlord and her son removed the rubbish themselves. The landlord sought the sum of $960.00 in compensation for doing so, calculated based on the time spent. I consider this sum to be very reasonable given the amount of rubbish left behind, particularly as the cost would likely have been far higher if the landlord had engaged a rubbish removal contractor.
The landlord also claimed the sum of $700.00 for cleaning, which she also did herself. She explained that the condition of the property was poor. Although the landlord provided photos of the damage claimed (see below) she did not provide copies of the condition of the property proving that it was not left reasonably clean and tidy. I accept that some of the amount claimed for cleaning would have involved removing rubbish that ended up in the piles outside for removal, and so order what I estimate to be a reasonable sum for doing so, being $200.00.
The landlord had to have the lawns mowed twice, first with a weed-eater, as the grass was so long at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced photos of the lawn showing the length of the grass. The landlord sought the sum of $300.00 for the lawns. I consider this sum to be reasonable, particularly as this is a very large site (over 900m 2 )
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord produced invoices for locks in the amounts of $447.00, $155.00 (house doors) and $241.50 (garage door).
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed compensation for transport for travelling to and from the property sorting out these issues and attending to the claims. However I consider this travel to be the incidental cost of being in business as a landlord, and not a sum recoverable from the tenant.

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.
A large amount of damage was caused during this tenancy. The tenant took it upon herself to paint the walls pink (although did not finish doing so) and applied plaster to the walls without then sanding. She also glued carpet squares over the polished wooden floors. The tenant removed the flue from the wood burner (for reasons of economy the landlord replaced this with a heat pump), caused smoke damage to the ceiling, removed the hot water cylinder and copper piping, damaged the dishwasher and caused various other incidental damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has claimed against her insurance and has been compensated for the damage. The landlord’s insurer has applied two excesses of $1,500.00. I order that the tenant compensate the landlord for both excess amounts paid, a total sum of $3,000.00.
The landlord also explained that earlier on in the tenancy the tenant crashed into the garage door causing damage to the door and brickwork. This led to an insurance claim and the insurer applied an excess of $1,000.00.
The landlord produced a copy of the insurance claim and excess amounts imposed, together with correspondence with the tenant accepting responsibility. The landlord is entitled to compensation for this excess also.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression and filing fee
The landlord has already been awarded the filing fee for this application and so no further order is required.
The landlord has been the substantially successful party. She sought, and is entitled to, and order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092588 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092588 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?