What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097688 about?

The tribunal order states: Summa-Rose Jessabell Karaitiana and Kodi Christophere Ehaka Wakefield

How much money was awarded in case 5097688?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,455.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $141.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,673.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097688 about?

The tribunal order states: Summa-Rose Jessabell Karaitiana and Kodi Christophere Ehaka Wakefield

How much money was awarded in case 5097688?

Cleaning: $483.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,455.23 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $141.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,673.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

27A Thomas Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097688 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

27A Thomas Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097688 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097688 — net $3,986.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$1,455.23	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$141.27	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal 3 hours	$207.00	Rubbish removal 3 hours
Repairs	$1,673.25	Repairs
Reimbursement of filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$3,986.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,986.75

Claims and awards for application 5097688 — net $3,986.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Window repairs

Amount: $1,455.23
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $141.27
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $483.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal 3 hours

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal 3 hours

Repairs

Amount: $1,673.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Reimbursement of filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Summa-Rose Jessabell Karaitiana and Kodi Christophere Ehaka Wakefield must pay [The landlord/s] $3,986.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
00 Total award$3,986.75 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,986.75
An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Matangi.
The tenants did not attend and did not answer the calls made to their phone during the hearing. They had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in their absence.
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 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 landlord has established in oral and pictorial evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. It appears no cleaning was undertaken, and a considerable amount of rubbish was left, particularly in the shed.
The amounts ordered are proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has proven in evidence that during the tenancy two windows were smashed, one ranch slider panel was smashed, there was a broken floorboard in the kitchen, the chimney flue had been pulled away, there were numerous holes in the walls that had been partly, but not completely repaired, and a curtain and blind had been damaged. They seek compensation for having to repair the damage.
To be successful in such a claim, 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.
Having considered the photos of the damage and the nature and extent of the damage, I am satisfied that it was all caused intentionally. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the costs as sought which are considered reasonable in the circumstances.
In making the award 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve their claim for suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097688 — net $3,986.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$1,455.23	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$141.27	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$483.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal 3 hours	$207.00	Rubbish removal 3 hours
Repairs	$1,673.25	Repairs
Reimbursement of filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$3,986.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,986.75

Claims and awards for application 5097688 — net $3,986.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Window repairs

Amount: $1,455.23
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $141.27
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $483.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal 3 hours

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal 3 hours

Repairs

Amount: $1,673.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Reimbursement of filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Summa-Rose Jessabell Karaitiana and Kodi Christophere Ehaka Wakefield must pay [The landlord/s] $3,986.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
00 Total award$3,986.75 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,986.75
An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Matangi.
The tenants did not attend and did not answer the calls made to their phone during the hearing. They had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in their absence.
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 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 landlord has established in oral and pictorial evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. It appears no cleaning was undertaken, and a considerable amount of rubbish was left, particularly in the shed.
The amounts ordered are proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has proven in evidence that during the tenancy two windows were smashed, one ranch slider panel was smashed, there was a broken floorboard in the kitchen, the chimney flue had been pulled away, there were numerous holes in the walls that had been partly, but not completely repaired, and a curtain and blind had been damaged. They seek compensation for having to repair the damage.
To be successful in such a claim, 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.
Having considered the photos of the damage and the nature and extent of the damage, I am satisfied that it was all caused intentionally. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the costs as sought which are considered reasonable in the circumstances.
In making the award 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve their claim for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097688 — Property damage at 27A Thomas Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097688 — Property damage at 27A Thomas Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

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

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

Frequently asked questions