What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5175894?

The tribunal order states: Racheal Kako Peneit Crowe must pay Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa /

How much money was awarded in case 5175894?

Lightbulbs: $413.09 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $248.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175894?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11713047-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5175894?

The tribunal order states: Racheal Kako Peneit Crowe must pay Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa /

How much money was awarded in case 5175894?

Lightbulbs: $413.09 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $248.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175894?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175894?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11713047-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Pilrig Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175894 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175894 — net $133.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$140.47	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Window repairs	$248.98	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$213.75	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: disposal of goods	$1,020.00	Rubbish removal: disposal of goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$70.00	Cleaning
__________________________________________________________________________________ 51758942 Repairs: Holes/Lightbulbs/cu	$413.09	__________________________________________________________________________________ 51758942 Repairs: Holes/Lightbulbs/cu
Net award	$133.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$133.29

Racheal Kako Peneit Crowe must pay Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh $133.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3346650-015) to Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh immediately.

Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.

The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear, and the hearing continued in their absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 did not leave the premises clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There was evidence that the bathroom required cleaning, and an amount is awarded for this. There was not enough evidence provided to award the full amount claimed.

There was a substantial amount of household items including beds and white wear that was removed from the premises by family member and put outside. There was also another large amount of household goods left by the front fence at the premises.

The locks at the premises both front and back no longer worked and were replaced.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord provided evidence that there were at least 7 light bulbs missing and 2 of these were from the bathroom heat lamp. These costs are incorporated into the repairs invoice.

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 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: a) It was established that there were 5 holes in the walls and one door. It was not established that there was a hole in the lounge wall. b) I find that the regluing of wallpaper was a maintenance issue and not damage caused by the tenant. c) A door handle to a bedroom was broken. d) Two curtain rails were not fixed to the walls, and one needed more hooks to rehang. e) The towel rail had to be reattached to the bathroom door.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

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. Disposal of goods.

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is unable to contact the tenant. They said that they had tried calling and texting. They reached out to family members who could not tell them where the tenant was or how to reach her. I find that the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant.

It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant and the landlord assessed that the good have very little value being either old or broken.

Section 62A(2) states that if the value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them, then the landlord may dispose of the goods in any way they think fit. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided a quote for the removal and disposal of the items. As this has not occurred, I award a nominal amount because the landlord has not removed the rubbish and has re-tenanted the premises.

I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and are responsible for removing all the rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy. This is a cost for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.

Because Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175894 — net $133.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$140.47	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Window repairs	$248.98	Window repairs
Lock/key replacement	$213.75	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: disposal of goods	$1,020.00	Rubbish removal: disposal of goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$70.00	Cleaning
__________________________________________________________________________________ 51758942 Repairs: Holes/Lightbulbs/cu	$413.09	__________________________________________________________________________________ 51758942 Repairs: Holes/Lightbulbs/cu
Net award	$133.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$133.29

Order

Racheal Kako Peneit Crowe must pay Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh $133.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3346650-015) to Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh immediately.
Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 did not leave the premises clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There was evidence that the bathroom required cleaning, and an amount is awarded for this. There was not enough evidence provided to award the full amount claimed.
There was a substantial amount of household items including beds and white wear that was removed from the premises by family member and put outside. There was also another large amount of household goods left by the front fence at the premises.
The locks at the premises both front and back no longer worked and were replaced.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord provided evidence that there were at least 7 light bulbs missing and 2 of these were from the bathroom heat lamp. These costs are incorporated into the repairs invoice.
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 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: a) It was established that there were 5 holes in the walls and one door. It was not established that there was a hole in the lounge wall. b) I find that the regluing of wallpaper was a maintenance issue and not damage caused by the tenant. c) A door handle to a bedroom was broken. d) Two curtain rails were not fixed to the walls, and one needed more hooks to rehang. e) The towel rail had to be reattached to the bathroom door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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. Disposal of goods.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is unable to contact the tenant. They said that they had tried calling and texting. They reached out to family members who could not tell them where the tenant was or how to reach her. I find that the landlord has made all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant and the landlord assessed that the good have very little value being either old or broken.
Section 62A(2) states that if the value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them, then the landlord may dispose of the goods in any way they think fit. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a quote for the removal and disposal of the items. As this has not occurred, I award a nominal amount because the landlord has not removed the rubbish and has re-tenanted the premises.
I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and are responsible for removing all the rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy. This is a cost for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
Because Property Brokers Limited - Wairarapa / Waikato Region Acting Agent for Dilpreet Singh has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175894 — Property damage at 1 Pilrig Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175894 — Property damage at 1 Pilrig Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

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