What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5149233?

The tribunal order states: Pamela Minnie Pereniko, Jason Winston Marsh and Daniel Marsh must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5149233?

Dump Fees: $269.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Landlord Labour Charges: $951.60 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5149233 D…: $4,432.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5149233?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5149233?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698863-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5149233?

The tribunal order states: Pamela Minnie Pereniko, Jason Winston Marsh and Daniel Marsh must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5149233?

Dump Fees: $269.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Landlord Labour Charges: $951.60 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5149233 D…: $4,432.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5149233?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5149233?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698863-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

311 Montgomery Street, Raureka, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5149233 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5149233. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5149233 dated 27/02/2025	$4,432.19	Previous order application 5149233 dated 27/02/2025
Compensation for damage	$2,000.00	Compensation for damage
Skip bin hire	$570.00	Skip bin hire
Dump fees	$269.70	Dump fees
Landlord labour charges	$951.60	Landlord labour charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Pamela Minnie Pereniko, Jason Winston Marsh and Daniel Marsh must pay Luki Limited $8,250.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This Order supersedes and replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 27 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Pereniko and Jason Marsh attended. Daniel Marsh did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 27 February 2025 an Order was made determining the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. Hearing of the compensation claims was adjourned to give the tenants fair opportunity to consider and respond to them.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that at the end of the tenancy a large quantity of goods were left there by the tenants.
The landlord’s evidence is that discussions were held with Ms Pereniko directly and through a neighbour about removal of those goods. Ms Luki says that she understood that any items of value had been removed by the tenants and that what was left was not wanted by them. She says that she ensured that items of personal value (photographs) were returned to the tenants through a neighbour and that in terms of s.62A RTA the remaining goods did not have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them.
The landlord hired a skip bin, Ms Luki and her family filled it and made additional trips to the dump with material that would not fit in the skip.
Ms Pereniko says that the goods left at the premises were goods of value to her that she just had no way of removing them at the end of the tenancy. That is not a claim raised before this hearing. If the tenants claim that their belongings were not dealt with by the landlord as required by the RTA they can bring a claim accordingly but in fairness to the landlord that should be done through a proper application, setting out the basis for those claims so the landlord has fair opportunity to consider and respond to them.
What is clear is that the tenants breached their obligation to remove all their belongings and unwanted goods from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has incurred a loss in having that material removed. The skip hire and dump charge receipts prove those costs which the landlord should be compensated for.
The photographs provided show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning work was undertaken by Ms Luki and family.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the loss caused by having to remove goods and rubbish from the premises and clean the premises. The landlord is a company nor a person. It cannot claim for its time and is only entitled to claim actual losses incurred.
The landlord has provided time/ wage records which appear to show that Kasey Luki and Shane Luki are employed full time by the company. Ms Luki says that all of their time from 17 January 2024 to 24 January 2024 (6 days x 8 hours per day for each of them was spent cleaning the premises, removing rubbish and getting the premises able to be reoccupied). That differs somewhat from the hours breakdown provided with the application, which includes the time of other family members.
With respect, that claim also ignores that those labour costs would have been incurred to the company anyway, if it would have paid its employees for those days in any event, albeit doing other work.
That said, I accept that having to have its employees do that work, which was the tenant’s responsibility, will have created a cost to the landlord that it should be compensated for. With no evidence of arms length third party costs incurred, all the Tribunal can do is estimate, from the evidence provided, what would be fair compensation to the landlord, bearing in mind that the cost of its employees’ time is not directly created by the tenants’ breach.
Looking at the evidence showing the amount of material the landlord had to deal with and the condition of the premises, I assess a total of 40 hours labour @ $23.79 would be reasonable compensation for the landlord having to clean and remove rubbish from the premises and bring them to rentable condition.

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.
The landlord does not have entry inspection photographs. The entry inspection report attached to the agreement records some pre-existing damage, notably: a.wallpaper tears in the kitchen/ dining area, bedroom1 and hallway; b.carpet burns and stains to the lounge carpet c.carpet stains in bedrooms 2 and 3
During the tenancy further damage was caused. There were cigarette burns in the carpet of the bedroom occupied by Daniel Marsh (bedroom 1 in the inspection report), there were scratches/ gouges on walls and cabinetry, door handles were missing or broken, curtains were broken or missing, there were holes in doors and walls.
The landlord’s application claims compensation totalling $7,000.00 for that damage.
Ms Pereniko acknowledges that the damage was caused during the tenancy by her son Daniel.
The landlord has relet the premises on a short term basis, after having sufficiently repaired the damage from its own resources. No quantifiable loss has yet been incurred. Ms Luki says that costs will be incurred once the landlord has decided what to do with the premises, whether to rent in out again longer term or sell it – in which case the loss will be in the form of the costs of further work to bring the premises to saleable condition or in a reduced sale price.
I made it clear during the hearing that if the Tribunal is asked to assess compensation in the absence of evidence showing actual loss, that could only be done on an estimate basis and would necessarily be conservative. The opportunity was given to the landlord to defer the hearing of its claims until the evidence of actual loss could be provided. Ms Luki confirmed that the landlord wishes a decision to be made now, on the basis of evidence currently available.
It is proved that the tenants damaged the premises during the tenancy. At least some of the damage appears to be intentional.
There will inevitably be a cost to the landlord in repairing that damage or in terms of a reduced value of the premises if it is sold or rented again on a long term basis.
Although Ms Luki says the carpet was quite new when the tenancy began, the entry inspection report shows pre- existing carpet damage and so it seems quite possible that the carpets would have required replacement in any event.
The photographs suggest that the wall coverings were old and worn. The entry inspection report shows pre-existing damage in some rooms so again it seems quite likely that replacement of at least some of the wall coverings may have been required anyway.
Damage to the cabinetry, holes in walls and doors was not there at the start of the tenancy and will require repair as a result of damage the tenants are responsible for.
Taking the approach I indicated during the hearing, of making a conservative estimate of the likely loss caused by the damage caused during the tenancy, I find that compensation of $2,000.00 should be paid.
Ms Pereniko says that it is not reasonable that she and Jason be required to pay compensation when they paid their share of the rent and were not responsible for any damage to the premises, which was caused by Daniel.
While I understand it may not seem fair to her, Mrs Pereniko, Jason and Daniel signed the tenancy agreement on the basis that they are joint tenants. What that means in law is that each of them is responsible for ensuring performance of the tenants’ obligations under the agreement.
That being so, this Order must be made against all of them.
Because Luki Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5149233. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5149233 dated 27/02/2025	$4,432.19	Previous order application 5149233 dated 27/02/2025
Compensation for damage	$2,000.00	Compensation for damage
Skip bin hire	$570.00	Skip bin hire
Dump fees	$269.70	Dump fees
Landlord labour charges	$951.60	Landlord labour charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Pamela Minnie Pereniko, Jason Winston Marsh and Daniel Marsh must pay Luki Limited $8,250.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This Order supersedes and replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 27 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Pereniko and Jason Marsh attended. Daniel Marsh did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 27 February 2025 an Order was made determining the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. Hearing of the compensation claims was adjourned to give the tenants fair opportunity to consider and respond to them.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that at the end of the tenancy a large quantity of goods were left there by the tenants.
The landlord’s evidence is that discussions were held with Ms Pereniko directly and through a neighbour about removal of those goods. Ms Luki says that she understood that any items of value had been removed by the tenants and that what was left was not wanted by them. She says that she ensured that items of personal value (photographs) were returned to the tenants through a neighbour and that in terms of s.62A RTA the remaining goods did not have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them.
The landlord hired a skip bin, Ms Luki and her family filled it and made additional trips to the dump with material that would not fit in the skip.
Ms Pereniko says that the goods left at the premises were goods of value to her that she just had no way of removing them at the end of the tenancy. That is not a claim raised before this hearing. If the tenants claim that their belongings were not dealt with by the landlord as required by the RTA they can bring a claim accordingly but in fairness to the landlord that should be done through a proper application, setting out the basis for those claims so the landlord has fair opportunity to consider and respond to them.
What is clear is that the tenants breached their obligation to remove all their belongings and unwanted goods from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has incurred a loss in having that material removed. The skip hire and dump charge receipts prove those costs which the landlord should be compensated for.
The photographs provided show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning work was undertaken by Ms Luki and family.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the loss caused by having to remove goods and rubbish from the premises and clean the premises. The landlord is a company nor a person. It cannot claim for its time and is only entitled to claim actual losses incurred.
The landlord has provided time/ wage records which appear to show that Kasey Luki and Shane Luki are employed full time by the company. Ms Luki says that all of their time from 17 January 2024 to 24 January 2024 (6 days x 8 hours per day for each of them was spent cleaning the premises, removing rubbish and getting the premises able to be reoccupied). That differs somewhat from the hours breakdown provided with the application, which includes the time of other family members.
With respect, that claim also ignores that those labour costs would have been incurred to the company anyway, if it would have paid its employees for those days in any event, albeit doing other work.
That said, I accept that having to have its employees do that work, which was the tenant’s responsibility, will have created a cost to the landlord that it should be compensated for. With no evidence of arms length third party costs incurred, all the Tribunal can do is estimate, from the evidence provided, what would be fair compensation to the landlord, bearing in mind that the cost of its employees’ time is not directly created by the tenants’ breach.
Looking at the evidence showing the amount of material the landlord had to deal with and the condition of the premises, I assess a total of 40 hours labour @ $23.79 would be reasonable compensation for the landlord having to clean and remove rubbish from the premises and bring them to rentable condition.

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.
The landlord does not have entry inspection photographs. The entry inspection report attached to the agreement records some pre-existing damage, notably: a.wallpaper tears in the kitchen/ dining area, bedroom1 and hallway; b.carpet burns and stains to the lounge carpet c.carpet stains in bedrooms 2 and 3
During the tenancy further damage was caused. There were cigarette burns in the carpet of the bedroom occupied by Daniel Marsh (bedroom 1 in the inspection report), there were scratches/ gouges on walls and cabinetry, door handles were missing or broken, curtains were broken or missing, there were holes in doors and walls.
The landlord’s application claims compensation totalling $7,000.00 for that damage.
Ms Pereniko acknowledges that the damage was caused during the tenancy by her son Daniel.
The landlord has relet the premises on a short term basis, after having sufficiently repaired the damage from its own resources. No quantifiable loss has yet been incurred. Ms Luki says that costs will be incurred once the landlord has decided what to do with the premises, whether to rent in out again longer term or sell it – in which case the loss will be in the form of the costs of further work to bring the premises to saleable condition or in a reduced sale price.
I made it clear during the hearing that if the Tribunal is asked to assess compensation in the absence of evidence showing actual loss, that could only be done on an estimate basis and would necessarily be conservative. The opportunity was given to the landlord to defer the hearing of its claims until the evidence of actual loss could be provided. Ms Luki confirmed that the landlord wishes a decision to be made now, on the basis of evidence currently available.
It is proved that the tenants damaged the premises during the tenancy. At least some of the damage appears to be intentional.
There will inevitably be a cost to the landlord in repairing that damage or in terms of a reduced value of the premises if it is sold or rented again on a long term basis.
Although Ms Luki says the carpet was quite new when the tenancy began, the entry inspection report shows pre- existing carpet damage and so it seems quite possible that the carpets would have required replacement in any event.
The photographs suggest that the wall coverings were old and worn. The entry inspection report shows pre-existing damage in some rooms so again it seems quite likely that replacement of at least some of the wall coverings may have been required anyway.
Damage to the cabinetry, holes in walls and doors was not there at the start of the tenancy and will require repair as a result of damage the tenants are responsible for.
Taking the approach I indicated during the hearing, of making a conservative estimate of the likely loss caused by the damage caused during the tenancy, I find that compensation of $2,000.00 should be paid.
Ms Pereniko says that it is not reasonable that she and Jason be required to pay compensation when they paid their share of the rent and were not responsible for any damage to the premises, which was caused by Daniel.
While I understand it may not seem fair to her, Mrs Pereniko, Jason and Daniel signed the tenancy agreement on the basis that they are joint tenants. What that means in law is that each of them is responsible for ensuring performance of the tenants’ obligations under the agreement.
That being so, this Order must be made against all of them.
Because Luki Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5149233 — Property damage at 311 Montgomery Street, Raureka, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5149233 — Property damage at 311 Montgomery Street, Raureka, Hastings 4120

At a glance

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

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