How much money was awarded in case 5095708?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Doors And Wardrobe Doors: $300.12 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Socket: $117.88 awarded to landlord; Garage: $640.46 awarded to landlord; Laundry Floor: $698.21 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $586.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095708?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5095708?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Doors And Wardrobe Doors: $300.12 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Socket: $117.88 awarded to landlord; Garage: $640.46 awarded to landlord; Laundry Floor: $698.21 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $586.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095708?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Garland Drive, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095708 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095708 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095708 — net $1,522.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$480.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns, garden and rubbish removal	$586.50	Lawns, garden and rubbish removal
Repairs: laundry floor	$698.21	Repairs: laundry floor
Repairs: bedroom doors and wardrobe doors	$300.12	Repairs: bedroom doors and wardrobe doors
Repairs: electrical socket	$117.88	Repairs: electrical socket
Repairs: carpet	$207.00	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: garage	$640.46	Repairs: garage
Lock/key replacement: ranch slider door	$80.50	Lock/key replacement: ranch slider door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,522.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,522.67

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Folo Feulufai and Tinoi Feulufai must pay [The landlord/s] $1,522.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1

The term “premises” includes any land and appurtenances, other than facilities. 2 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish applies to the inside and outside of the premises.

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the inside or outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord also claims the tenant did not return the keys to a ranch slider door at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$480.00 b. Carpet cleaning:$345.00 c. Lawns, garden and rubbish removal:$586.50 d. Key and lock replacement:$80.50

The landlord submitted invoices for each item above.

I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning & carpet cleaning

The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. The kitchen cupboards are dirty. They have not been emptied and perishable goods have been left inside. The bathroom drawers and cupboards are dirty and have not been cleaned. Some areas of the carpet do not appear to have been vacuumed and there are some small – moderate sized stains present, including an obvious red stain.

The landlord gave evidence that the property, including the carpet, smelt bad as a result of not being cleaned properly.

The landlord gave further evidence that the property was renovated shortly before the tenancy began and new carpet had been laid throughout the house. The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which do not show any stains to the carpet.

I accept the evidence given by the landlord at the hearing regarding the smell of the property and carpet at the end of the tenancy. On the basis of this evidence, together with the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

It was reasonable for the landlord to have the property and carpets professionally cleaned. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$480.00 b. Carpet cleaning:$345.00 Lawns, garden and rubbish removal

The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show parts of the lawn are overgrown. They also show the garden beds have not been maintained and are full of weeds. Small amounts of rubbish are scattered throughout the lawn and there are some large wooden pallets that have been left behind by the tenant.

On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord’s claim for compensation of $586.50 to attend to the garden and remove the rubbish is granted. Lock & Key replacement

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the key to the ranch slider door. The landlord has had the lock replaced at a cost of $80.50.

I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation of $80.50 to replace the lock.

DAMAGE

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 landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based upon a comparison of these photographs, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Laundry floor damaged b. Two bedroom doors damaged with a poor repair attempt completed by the tenant c. Multiple marks to one set of wardrobe doors d. Electrical socket in the master bedroom has blown out due to the tenant running a power cord from the power socket through a window and outside into the garage e. Melted carpet in a bedroom f. Hole in the garage wall to receive the power cord running from the master bedroom into the garage

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

The landlord has insurance but did not file a claim with their insurer as the excess fee would have exceeded the repair costs.

The landlord has had all of the damage repaired except for the hole in the side of the garage. The landlord submitted invoices for all of the repair work that has been completed.

The landlord submitted a quote for $640.46 to repair the garage wall. The landlord submitted a photograph of the side of the garage, which shows the tenant has attempted to repair the hole. The repair is in a different colour to the rest of the garage. The landlord gave evidence that they have had the repair job assessed by a tradesperson who advised them that the repair has not been completed to a tradesman like standard and is most likely not waterproof.

The landlord gave evidence that the property has been re-tenanted and they have given the new tenant assurances that the garage wall will be repaired properly.

I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding their intention to repair the garage wall and consider it to be genuine. I find it unlikely that the landlord will not repair the hole per the quote, as failure to do so will risk further damage accruing to the garage due to waterproofing issues.

I grant the landlord’s claim for compensation for repairs to all of the damaged areas for the following amounts: a. Laundry floor $698.21 b. Bedroom doors and wardrobe doors $300.12 c. Electrical socket $117.88 d. Bedroom carpet patch repair $207.00 e. Garage wall$640.46

All of the amounts ordered above are proved.

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. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their request for name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095708 — net $1,522.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$480.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns, garden and rubbish removal	$586.50	Lawns, garden and rubbish removal
Repairs: laundry floor	$698.21	Repairs: laundry floor
Repairs: bedroom doors and wardrobe doors	$300.12	Repairs: bedroom doors and wardrobe doors
Repairs: electrical socket	$117.88	Repairs: electrical socket
Repairs: carpet	$207.00	Repairs: carpet
Repairs: garage	$640.46	Repairs: garage
Lock/key replacement: ranch slider door	$80.50	Lock/key replacement: ranch slider door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,522.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,522.67

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Folo Feulufai and Tinoi Feulufai must pay [The landlord/s] $1,522.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1

The landlord seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$480.00 b. Carpet cleaning:$345.00 c. Lawns, garden and rubbish removal:$586.50 d. Key and lock replacement:$80.50

The landlord submitted invoices for each item above.

I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning & carpet cleaning

The landlord gave evidence that the property, including the carpet, smelt bad as a result of not being cleaned properly.

On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord’s claim for compensation of $586.50 to attend to the garden and remove the rubbish is granted. Lock & Key replacement

The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the key to the ranch slider door. The landlord has had the lock replaced at a cost of $80.50.

I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation of $80.50 to replace the lock.

DAMAGE

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

The landlord has insurance but did not file a claim with their insurer as the excess fee would have exceeded the repair costs.

The landlord has had all of the damage repaired except for the hole in the side of the garage. The landlord submitted invoices for all of the repair work that has been completed.

The landlord gave evidence that the property has been re-tenanted and they have given the new tenant assurances that the garage wall will be repaired properly.

All of the amounts ordered above are proved.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095708 — Property damage at 14 Garland Drive, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095708 — Property damage at 14 Garland Drive, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions