What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5130270?

The tribunal order states: Brian Coley and Lisa Bell must pay Property Brokers Limited - As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5130270?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,655.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent - Lounge Wall: $35.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent- Fireplace Door: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Tenants Bedroom Walls: $277.50 awarded to landlord; Tenants Kitchen Walls: $425.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11676513-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5130270?

The tribunal order states: Brian Coley and Lisa Bell must pay Property Brokers Limited - As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5130270?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,655.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent - Lounge Wall: $35.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent- Fireplace Door: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Tenants Bedroom Walls: $277.50 awarded to landlord; Tenants Kitchen Walls: $425.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130270?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11676513-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

435 Te Aupapa Road, Kaitawa, RD 1, Pahiatua 4981 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5130270 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5130270 — net $6,719.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 March 2025	$4,655.00	Rent arrears to 5 March 2025
Repairs: By consent - lounge wall	$35.00	Repairs: By consent - lounge wall
Repairs: By consent- fireplace door	$200.00	Repairs: By consent- fireplace door
Rubbish removal	$1,100.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Tenants bedroom walls	$277.50	Repairs: Tenants bedroom walls
Repairs: Tenants kitchen walls	$425.00	Repairs: Tenants kitchen walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,719.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,719.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, termination compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Landlord withdrew their claim for termination at the start of the hearing.

By consent, the Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord the amount they claimed for rent arrears, repairs of the lounge wall and fireplace door.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failed to remove all rubbish. Photographs of the property revealed a number of items left behind, which the tenant did not dispute. A third-party quote for rubbish removal was provided. The Landlord submitted this price included labour costs, travel to the tip, and tip fees. There was a substantial amount of rubbish in the house, particularly in the shed.

The tenant disagreed with this claim, stating that the work had not yet been completed and estimating that the cost of rubbish removal should be $200.00.

In considering the evidence, particularly the amount of rubbish documented in the photographs, the fact that the tenant did not dispute leaving the rubbish behind, and the third-party quote provided, I am satisfied that the claim is reasonable.

The amounts ordered 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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall holes in the kitchen and bedroom.

The landlord submitted that repairing the four holes in the bedroom required stripping all the existing wallpaper and replacing it with new material. The provided quote indicated significant damage to the wallpaper. The property in question was a farmhouse, which the landlord estimated to have been built in the 1950s.

The tenant did not dispute that the holes had occurred during their tenancy and acknowledged their intention to repair them. However, upon inspecting the holes, it was apparent that the damage exceeded what could be considered fair wear and tear. The tenant disagreed, though, with the need to replace the entire room’s wallpaper.

In considering the evidence, I find the damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproven liability for it. In making my assessment, I must consider depreciation. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, without being placed in a better or worse position than before. The ingoing photographs showed the wallpaper was already peeling at the start of the tenancy, and there was no conclusive evidence regarding its age. The average lifespan of wallpaper is typically between 5 to 12 years, and based on the style of the house (circa 1950s), I would estimate that the wallpaper was approaching the end of its lifespan. For this reason, I will award 15% of the amount claimed.

The amount ordered are proved.

The landlord claimed damage to three separate walls in the kitchen, where the wallpaper had been ripped. The damage required both plastering and painting. Since the wallpaper could not be matched, the third-party quote indicated that the walls would need to be stripped and repainted in a matching colour. The tenants did not dispute the damage, and it appeared intentional, as if the wallpaper had been deliberately torn off. Photographs of the damage were provided, along with an ingoing inspection photo showing no prior damage.

In considering the evidence, I accept that the landlord would have needed to strip the wallpaper from three walls. I find that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. However, in considering depreciation, the wallpaper would have been nearly six years old, given that the tenancy began in 2019. Therefore, taking into account the typical lifespan of wallpaper (5-12 years), I consider that the amount awarded should be reduced by 50% to reflect the depreciation.

The amount ordered is proved.

As Property Brokers Limited - As Agent For Bridget & Ryan Elliston have been substantially successful with the claim the Tenants must reimburse the filing fee.

As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5130270 — net $6,719.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 March 2025	$4,655.00	Rent arrears to 5 March 2025
Repairs: By consent - lounge wall	$35.00	Repairs: By consent - lounge wall
Repairs: By consent- fireplace door	$200.00	Repairs: By consent- fireplace door
Rubbish removal	$1,100.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Tenants bedroom walls	$277.50	Repairs: Tenants bedroom walls
Repairs: Tenants kitchen walls	$425.00	Repairs: Tenants kitchen walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,719.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,719.50

Order

Brian Coley and Lisa Bell must pay Property Brokers Limited - As Agent For Bridget & Ryan Elliston $6,719.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, termination compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Landlord withdrew their claim for termination at the start of the hearing.
By consent, the Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord the amount they claimed for rent arrears, repairs of the lounge wall and fireplace door.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failed to remove all rubbish. Photographs of the property revealed a number of items left behind, which the tenant did not dispute. A third-party quote for rubbish removal was provided. The Landlord submitted this price included labour costs, travel to the tip, and tip fees. There was a substantial amount of rubbish in the house, particularly in the shed.
The tenant disagreed with this claim, stating that the work had not yet been completed and estimating that the cost of rubbish removal should be $200.00.
In considering the evidence, particularly the amount of rubbish documented in the photographs, the fact that the tenant did not dispute leaving the rubbish behind, and the third-party quote provided, I am satisfied that the claim is reasonable.
The amounts ordered 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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall holes in the kitchen and bedroom.
The landlord submitted that repairing the four holes in the bedroom required stripping all the existing wallpaper and replacing it with new material. The provided quote indicated significant damage to the wallpaper. The property in question was a farmhouse, which the landlord estimated to have been built in the 1950s.
The tenant did not dispute that the holes had occurred during their tenancy and acknowledged their intention to repair them. However, upon inspecting the holes, it was apparent that the damage exceeded what could be considered fair wear and tear. The tenant disagreed, though, with the need to replace the entire room’s wallpaper.
In considering the evidence, I find the damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproven liability for it. In making my assessment, I must consider depreciation. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, without being placed in a better or worse position than before. The ingoing photographs showed the wallpaper was already peeling at the start of the tenancy, and there was no conclusive evidence regarding its age. The average lifespan of wallpaper is typically between 5 to 12 years, and based on the style of the house (circa 1950s), I would estimate that the wallpaper was approaching the end of its lifespan. For this reason, I will award 15% of the amount claimed.
The amount ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed damage to three separate walls in the kitchen, where the wallpaper had been ripped. The damage required both plastering and painting. Since the wallpaper could not be matched, the third-party quote indicated that the walls would need to be stripped and repainted in a matching colour. The tenants did not dispute the damage, and it appeared intentional, as if the wallpaper had been deliberately torn off. Photographs of the damage were provided, along with an ingoing inspection photo showing no prior damage.
In considering the evidence, I accept that the landlord would have needed to strip the wallpaper from three walls. I find that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. However, in considering depreciation, the wallpaper would have been nearly six years old, given that the tenancy began in 2019. Therefore, taking into account the typical lifespan of wallpaper (5-12 years), I consider that the amount awarded should be reduced by 50% to reflect the depreciation.
The amount ordered is proved.
As Property Brokers Limited - As Agent For Bridget & Ryan Elliston have been substantially successful with the claim the Tenants must reimburse the filing fee.
As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130270 — Rent arrears at 435 Te Aupapa Road, Kaitawa, RD 1, Pahiatua 4981

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130270 — Rent arrears at 435 Te Aupapa Road, Kaitawa, RD 1, Pahiatua 4981

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions