What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5136255?

The tribunal order states: Ellabeatrice Pickering must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David

How much money was awarded in case 5136255?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Windows: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136255?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11852119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5136255?

The tribunal order states: Ellabeatrice Pickering must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David

How much money was awarded in case 5136255?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Windows: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136255?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11852119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

189 Harrisville Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5136255 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136255 — net $3,927.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$80.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: Carpet	$2,000.00	Repairs: Carpet
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Wall damage	$1,380.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Repairs: Windows	$680.00	Repairs: Windows
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,927.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,927.00

Order

Ellabeatrice Pickering must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David Ballard $3,927.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 16 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6205818-003) to The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David Ballard immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenant did not attend by video or answer telephone calls made by the Tribunal on the number provided for the Tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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) 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 failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not remove all rubbish upon vacating. The Landlord submitted a quote in the amount of $6,800.00 for the removal of the rubbish, stating that this would require five 9-metre skip bins.
Upon review of the outgoing inspection report and accompanying photographic evidence, it appears the Tenant left a substantial quantity of personal belongings and household contents at the premises. These items included clothing, rubbish bags, furniture, crockery, and beds. However, it was not evident that the rooms contained a significant volume of furniture or large items to justify the use of five skip bins. The majority of the items left behind appeared to consist of general rubbish and clothing. Additional rubbish bags were observed on the deck area outside but there were no large items like a trampoline or an outdoor playground set etc
Based on the evidence presented, I find the quote of $6,800.00 to be excessive. In the absence of justification for the volume or cost claimed, I consider a more reasonable and proportionate amount for the removal of rubbish to be $2,000.00, and I award that amount accordingly.
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 identified during the tenancy: soiled and stained carpet, broken windows, and damage to walls, including holes and apparent bite marks. The Landlord submitted that the Tenant kept a dog at the premises, which was prohibited by the Tenancy Agreement. Photographic evidence was provided, showing a substantial amount of dog faeces in multiple rooms of the property, as well as staining on the floors.
Further photographic evidence showed a smashed front door window and a cracked backdoor window, multiple holes in the walls, and significant damage to a door frame, which appeared to have been caused by a dog biting into it. The Landlord provided both ingoing and outgoing inspection reports. Given that the tenancy lasted only six months and the fact that the Tenant never reported the damage, the Landlord submitted it was only visible at the end of the tenancy.
The damage to the walls was described as consistent with the impact of a person having fallen into them or hitting them. The broken windows appeared to have been caused by objects being thrown. The damage to the door frame appeared to be consistent with bite marks caused by a dog. The ingoing and outgoing inspection reports indicated that the wall damage and window damage were caused during the tenancy.
In relation to the carpet which covered all of the rooms in the house except the kitchen and bathroom, the ingoing inspection report noted existing staining, general wear and tear or fraying in many of the rooms. The Landlord claimed $9,500.00 for full replacement of the carpet, alleging that it was extensively stained with dog urine and faeces. A quote was provided to substantiate this. When asked whether any attempt had been made to professionally clean the carpet, the Landlord confirmed that no such attempt had been made, citing the extent of the staining.
The Landlord estimated the carpet to be approximately six to seven years old.
In consideration of the evidence, I do not accept that the Tenant should be held fully liable for the replacement of the carpet in the absence of a professional assessment indicating that cleaning was not a viable option. It is unreasonable to claim $9,500.00 for replacement without first attempting cleaning, particularly where the ingoing report documented pre-existing stains, wear, and tear. The Landlord did not provide any evidence form a professional cleaner.
While I accept that the dirty carpets would have delayed the property being rented out again and may have impacted the Landlord financially, I am not satisfied that immediate replacement of the carpet was the only reasonable remedy. Accordingly, I award the sum of $2,000.00 in compensation for the stained and soiled carpets.
I find the damage to the walls and windows were caused intentionally by the Tenant from the photographs, quotation and inspection reports. These indicate the damage was more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved the evidence.
The amounts ordered 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.
As The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David Ballard has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136255 — net $3,927.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$80.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: Carpet	$2,000.00	Repairs: Carpet
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Wall damage	$1,380.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Repairs: Windows	$680.00	Repairs: Windows
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,927.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,927.00

Order

Ellabeatrice Pickering must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David Ballard $3,927.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 16 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6205818-003) to The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David Ballard immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by video. The Tenant did not attend by video or answer telephone calls made by the Tribunal on the number provided for the Tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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) 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 failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not remove all rubbish upon vacating. The Landlord submitted a quote in the amount of $6,800.00 for the removal of the rubbish, stating that this would require five 9-metre skip bins.
Upon review of the outgoing inspection report and accompanying photographic evidence, it appears the Tenant left a substantial quantity of personal belongings and household contents at the premises. These items included clothing, rubbish bags, furniture, crockery, and beds. However, it was not evident that the rooms contained a significant volume of furniture or large items to justify the use of five skip bins. The majority of the items left behind appeared to consist of general rubbish and clothing. Additional rubbish bags were observed on the deck area outside but there were no large items like a trampoline or an outdoor playground set etc
Based on the evidence presented, I find the quote of $6,800.00 to be excessive. In the absence of justification for the volume or cost claimed, I consider a more reasonable and proportionate amount for the removal of rubbish to be $2,000.00, and I award that amount accordingly.
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 identified during the tenancy: soiled and stained carpet, broken windows, and damage to walls, including holes and apparent bite marks. The Landlord submitted that the Tenant kept a dog at the premises, which was prohibited by the Tenancy Agreement. Photographic evidence was provided, showing a substantial amount of dog faeces in multiple rooms of the property, as well as staining on the floors.
Further photographic evidence showed a smashed front door window and a cracked backdoor window, multiple holes in the walls, and significant damage to a door frame, which appeared to have been caused by a dog biting into it. The Landlord provided both ingoing and outgoing inspection reports. Given that the tenancy lasted only six months and the fact that the Tenant never reported the damage, the Landlord submitted it was only visible at the end of the tenancy.
The damage to the walls was described as consistent with the impact of a person having fallen into them or hitting them. The broken windows appeared to have been caused by objects being thrown. The damage to the door frame appeared to be consistent with bite marks caused by a dog. The ingoing and outgoing inspection reports indicated that the wall damage and window damage were caused during the tenancy.
In relation to the carpet which covered all of the rooms in the house except the kitchen and bathroom, the ingoing inspection report noted existing staining, general wear and tear or fraying in many of the rooms. The Landlord claimed $9,500.00 for full replacement of the carpet, alleging that it was extensively stained with dog urine and faeces. A quote was provided to substantiate this. When asked whether any attempt had been made to professionally clean the carpet, the Landlord confirmed that no such attempt had been made, citing the extent of the staining.
The Landlord estimated the carpet to be approximately six to seven years old.
In consideration of the evidence, I do not accept that the Tenant should be held fully liable for the replacement of the carpet in the absence of a professional assessment indicating that cleaning was not a viable option. It is unreasonable to claim $9,500.00 for replacement without first attempting cleaning, particularly where the ingoing report documented pre-existing stains, wear, and tear. The Landlord did not provide any evidence form a professional cleaner.
While I accept that the dirty carpets would have delayed the property being rented out again and may have impacted the Landlord financially, I am not satisfied that immediate replacement of the carpet was the only reasonable remedy. Accordingly, I award the sum of $2,000.00 in compensation for the stained and soiled carpets.
I find the damage to the walls and windows were caused intentionally by the Tenant from the photographs, quotation and inspection reports. These indicate the damage was more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved the evidence.
The amounts ordered 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.
As The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For David Ballard has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136255 — Property damage at 189 Harrisville Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136255 — Property damage at 189 Harrisville Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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