What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5173011 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 5173011?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12414985-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5173011 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 5173011?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12414985-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Katrina Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5173011 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Rysy Investments Ltd $27,391.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Stubbs and Ms Coe.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy began on 28 November 2019 and ended on 11 December 2023. The tenants had originally given notice on the basis that they would vacate on 11 September 2023 but then sought an extension to 11 December 2023 which was granted.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, in the amounts of $125.00 for rent and $527.70 for water.

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

The landlord said that they took over management of this tenancy during the tenancy but produced photos from an inspection dated 3 May 2023 which show the property to be in fairly tidy condition except there were two damaged doors, a large pile of rubbish/various items in the laundry and the lawns had not been mown. During the inspection the landlord had also discovered that the tenants had two dogs (one of which was permitted) and six puppies which were all being housed inside.
Ms Stubbs explained that the landlord granted the extension to 11 December 2023 on the basis that the tenants removed the rubbish, re-homed the puppies, repaired the two doors and maintained the lawns. A copy of the letter to the tenants granting an extension on this basis was produced in evidence.
When Ms Stubbs attended to the final inspection however she found that not only had the tenants not done what they had said they would do, she could barely enter the property due to the smell of dog urine and faeces. She prepared an exit inspection report with the following comments:
The landlord produced exit-inspection photos showing that the property was left in a very poor state. The puppies had been kept inside but were obviously not toilet trained as the carpet in three of the bedrooms and the hallway was covered in urine and faeces as was the laminate flooring in the lounge and the terracotta tiles downstairs. There were scratch marks all over multiple walls and some of the carpet had been scratched and torn. A couch in one room had been upended and the stuffing had been torn out and covered most of the floor. The floors throughout were covered in various debris. A window was broken and there were holes in the wall.
The tenants left behind a huge amount of rubbish including a fridge full of food, multiple couches, a double bed and mattress, various drawers, a table and chairs, a tv cabinet, huge piles of what to be appears soiled bedding, a washing machine and various other household items. The tenants also left rubbish under the house and strewn throughout the garden and under the house including, furniture, bedding and piles of miscellaneous items.
The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $425.50 which I consider very reasonable in the circumstances. The claim for cleaning is proved.
The landlord produced the following invoices for rubbish removal as follows: a. $4,082.50 to remove all the rubbish from the house and surrounds; b. $569.74 to remove all of the rubbish under the house; and c. $560.67 for removal of three flexibins.
I consider the landlord’s claims for rubbish removal to be reasonable given the very large amount of rubbish left behind and the time that it would have taken to remove the rubbish which was spread all around the house and outside.
The claim for rubbish removal is proved.
The landlord produced photos showing that the lawns were very overgrown at the end of the tenancy together with an invoice for lawnmowing in the amount of $115.00 which I consider very reasonable given the amount of lawn mowing required.
The claim for lawnmowing is 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.
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 landlord had claimed against their insurance but at the case conference held in this matter it was not clear what had been covered by the landlord’s insurer. This was clarified by the landlord in advance of the hearing today as follows: a. The landlord claimed against their insurance to change the locks and repair the broken window. No excess was applied and the landlord does not seek any compensation for these repairs. b. The landlord also claimed against their insurance for additional damage and received compensation for repairing holes in the walls and various miscellaneous damage. The landlord’s insurer agreed to cover this damage. The landlord does not seek the excess amount of $500.00. c. The landlord claimed against their insurance for lost rent while repairs were undertaken and received compensation, although I was told for a shorter period than the time it took to do the repairs. No additional excess was applied. The landlord does not seek any additional compensation for lost rent. d. The landlord claimed against their insurer for the cost of repairing the flooring and recarpeting in the amount of $27,965.93. The landlord’s insurer did not agree to cover the cost of repairing flooring on the basis that it was gradual damage. The landlord therefore seeks to recover this amount from the tenants.
The landlord said that the flooring was so badly damaged that all of the carpet, the timber overlay in the lounge and vinyl flooring in the kitchen had to be removed. The floors in the master bedroom, third bedroom, part of the second bedroom and hallway had to be cut out and replaced as the urine had softened and swollen the particle board. The landlord provided photos once the carpet had been removed showing heavy staining and damage to the particle board underneath.
The landlord produced photos from the inspection on 3 May 2023 which show the carpet in reasonable condition and not soiled in any way.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was intentional. The tenants allowed a situation where they had six puppies inside, toileting all over the carpet and flooring for a period months. The tenants must have known that damage was a certainty.
In calculating compensation 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.
The landlord produced an invoice for the damage which was itemised as follows: a. $18,503 excluding GST ($21,278.45 including GST) for removing carpets and timber overlay flooring, remove skirtings, cut out particle board, fit perimeter framing as necessary, fit new plywood floors, refit skirtings. b. $3,200 excluding GST ($3,680 including GST) for supplying hardboard overlay to the kitchen/dining floor area and to supply and lay new vinyl floor coverings. c. $2,614.95 excluding GST ($3,007.19 including GST) to supply and lay new carpet and underlay to carpet and lounge, hallway and bedrooms.
I was told that the landlord simply carpeted the lounge rather than laying new timber overlay as this was a cheaper option.
The landlord advised that the carpet was last replaced in 2014, and so was 10 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The Inland Revenue Department IR265 depreciation schedules provide that carpet has a useful estimated life of 8 years. The carpet may still have had some useful life left but I note that the photos taken by the landlord in May 2023 do show some wear. I therefore consider that the carpet had reached its useful life and so I have deducted the amount at 22(c) above for carpet from my calculations.
I have also deducted half of the amount in $22(b) above for new overlay and vinyl, as there has been some betterment as the landlord now has new floor coverings in these areas.
I have awarded the full amount claimed in 22(a) above as in the usual course particle board flooring should not require repair or replacement.
The total sum awarded is $23,118.45. Bond
The tenants agreed that the bond could be released to the landlord following the end of the tenancy but the bond was not allocated at that stage to any particular outstanding amount or damage.
The landlord produced a copy of the completed bond form in evidence.
In the circumstances I have deducted the bond amount from the total sum to be paid by the tenants. The bond is no longer held at the Bond Centre however and so I have not made an order for release of the bond. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Rysy Investments Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173011 — Property damage at 28 Katrina Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173011 — Property damage at 28 Katrina Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.