What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5178131 about?

The tribunal order states: Carrie Anne Matkovich must pay the landlord $2,319.74 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5178131?

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 5178131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11947787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5178131 about?

The tribunal order states: Carrie Anne Matkovich must pay the landlord $2,319.74 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5178131?

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 5178131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11947787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5178131 — Property damage

Order

Carrie Anne Matkovich must pay the landlord $2,319.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was phoned but the call went to voicemail.
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 15 July 2023. 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the garage remotes.
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.
The damage caused by the tenant is listed in the table above. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The property was new in 2016 and therefore items such as carpet and curtains were about 7 years old when the tenancy ended.
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.
I have allowed 50% depreciation regarding the actual carpet cost and 70% depreciation on the insurance estimate for curtain replacement. I have depreciated the new oven replacement cost by 40%.
I have allowed 40% of the repainting cost. This takes account of the landlord being in a better position with a newly repainted interior of the premises after seven years use.
All other amounts claimed have been ordered.
In the present case the landlord chose to settle with the insurer and received $8,382.50 towards the losses. This payment reduces the landlord’s losses to $5,079.74 after all calculations have been accounted for. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Order

Carrie Anne Matkovich must pay the landlord $2,319.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was phoned but the call went to voicemail.
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 15 July 2023. 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the garage remotes.
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.
The damage caused by the tenant is listed in the table above. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The property was new in 2016 and therefore items such as carpet and curtains were about 7 years old when the tenancy ended.
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.
I have allowed 50% depreciation regarding the actual carpet cost and 70% depreciation on the insurance estimate for curtain replacement. I have depreciated the new oven replacement cost by 40%.
I have allowed 40% of the repainting cost. This takes account of the landlord being in a better position with a newly repainted interior of the premises after seven years use.
All other amounts claimed have been ordered.
In the present case the landlord chose to settle with the insurer and received $8,382.50 towards the losses. This payment reduces the landlord’s losses to $5,079.74 after all calculations have been accounted for. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178131 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178131 — Property damage

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?

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?