How much money was awarded in case 5107888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Moving Tenant Goods To Garage: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107888?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12046469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5107888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Moving Tenant Goods To Garage: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107888?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12046469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Dudley Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5107888 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5107888?

The tribunal order states: Justine Carmichael to pay Gold Property Management Limited, Rachel Wilford

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5107888 — net $1,300.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Bench repair	$747.50	Bench repair
Oven damage	$210.00	Oven damage
Moving tenant goods to garage	$86.25	Moving tenant goods to garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,300.75
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,300.75

Justine Carmichael to pay Gold Property Management Limited, Rachel Wilford and Steve Wilford $1,300.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6280609-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited (T/A Harcourts Gold Property Management Ltd) - As Agent For Rachel & Steve Wilford: $1,300.75 Justine Carmichael: $939.25

The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Christiansen attended the hearing for the landlords. The tenant was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.

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

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

The tenant did not return all keys and did not remove all belongings at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The amounts ordered are proved by the production of invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with the tenant’s permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

The landlords claim the cost to remedy the following: • Methamphetamine contamination: $2,500.00 (insurance excess payable) • Repainting of the entire premises due to the methamphetamine damage/remediation: $9,463.97 • Kitchen benchtop repair (chips and other damage): $747.50 • Replace oven (door damaged which could not be repaired): $697.90

The claim for methamphetamine damage, including to repaint the premises because of the decontamination process, is dismissed because the landlords have not established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. No pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing of the premises was completed and Mr Christiansen was unable to provide any other evidence to support that the contamination did occur during the tenancy.

I am satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage to the benchtop and the oven occurred during the tenancy. There is no mention of the damage on the pre-tenancy inspection report. I am also satisfied that the damage is beyond reasonable wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.

The landlords provided invoices which establish the amounts claimed.

The insurance excess limit of $550.00 is not applicable to the claim for the benchtop because each area of damage likely occurred at different times and therefore an excess would apply to each time damage occurred.

The claim to replace the oven has been reduced to account for depreciation and betterment. 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 of the oven and its useful lifespan. Mr Christiansen said that the oven was new approximately one to two years before the tenancy commenced (the tenancy commenced on 18 September 2019). It was therefore approximately seven years old at the end of the tenancy 23 August 2024). Ovens are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed by 70%.

Should the tenant be liable for exemplary damages?

The landlords claim exemplary damages for failure by the tenants to remove all belongings from the premises when the tenancy ended.

Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.

Failing to quit (vacate) the premises at the end of the tenancy is a breach of section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Act and a breach of section 40(1)(e)(i) is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 40(3A)(a) of the Act. Failing to remove all belongings at the end of the tenancy is a breach of section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act. However, a breach of section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act is not declared to be an unlawful act and therefore exemplary damages are not available for a breach of this section.

The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee

The landlords have been partially successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5107888 — net $1,300.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$230.00	Lock/key replacement
Bench repair	$747.50	Bench repair
Oven damage	$210.00	Oven damage
Moving tenant goods to garage	$86.25	Moving tenant goods to garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,300.75
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,300.75

Order

Justine Carmichael to pay Gold Property Management Limited, Rachel Wilford and Steve Wilford $1,300.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6280609-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited (T/A Harcourts Gold Property Management Ltd) - As Agent For Rachel & Steve Wilford: $1,300.75 Justine Carmichael: $939.25
The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Christiansen attended the hearing for the landlords. The tenant was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The tenant did not return all keys and did not remove all belongings at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved by the production of invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with the tenant’s permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlords claim the cost to remedy the following: • Methamphetamine contamination: $2,500.00 (insurance excess payable) • Repainting of the entire premises due to the methamphetamine damage/remediation: $9,463.97 • Kitchen benchtop repair (chips and other damage): $747.50 • Replace oven (door damaged which could not be repaired): $697.90
The claim for methamphetamine damage, including to repaint the premises because of the decontamination process, is dismissed because the landlords have not established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. No pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing of the premises was completed and Mr Christiansen was unable to provide any other evidence to support that the contamination did occur during the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage to the benchtop and the oven occurred during the tenancy. There is no mention of the damage on the pre-tenancy inspection report. I am also satisfied that the damage is beyond reasonable wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.
The landlords provided invoices which establish the amounts claimed.
The insurance excess limit of $550.00 is not applicable to the claim for the benchtop because each area of damage likely occurred at different times and therefore an excess would apply to each time damage occurred.
The claim to replace the oven has been reduced to account for depreciation and betterment. 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 of the oven and its useful lifespan. Mr Christiansen said that the oven was new approximately one to two years before the tenancy commenced (the tenancy commenced on 18 September 2019). It was therefore approximately seven years old at the end of the tenancy 23 August 2024). Ovens are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed by 70%.

Should the tenant be liable for exemplary damages?

The landlords claim exemplary damages for failure by the tenants to remove all belongings from the premises when the tenancy ended.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Failing to quit (vacate) the premises at the end of the tenancy is a breach of section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Act and a breach of section 40(1)(e)(i) is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 40(3A)(a) of the Act. Failing to remove all belongings at the end of the tenancy is a breach of section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act. However, a breach of section 40(1)(e)(ii) of the Act is not declared to be an unlawful act and therefore exemplary damages are not available for a breach of this section.
The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
The landlords have been partially successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107888 — Property damage at 51 Dudley Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107888 — Property damage at 51 Dudley Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant be liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant be liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions