What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184251?

The tribunal order states: Niamh Hanna and Tyson Wirihana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited-

How much money was awarded in case 5184251?

Cleaning: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $248.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,750.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds (Less Depreciation: $447.75 awarded to landlord; skirting boards, door frames, walls,…: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $212.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938980-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184251?

The tribunal order states: Niamh Hanna and Tyson Wirihana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited-

How much money was awarded in case 5184251?

Cleaning: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $248.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,750.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds (Less Depreciation: $447.75 awarded to landlord; skirting boards, door frames, walls,…: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $212.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938980-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Lippiatt Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184251 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

7 Lippiatt Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184251 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184251 — net $7,199.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation	$3,750.00		Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation
Cleaning	$670.00		Cleaning
Water rates	$212.40		Water rates
Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in	$1,950.00		Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in
Rubbish removal	$253.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: replacement of blinds (less depreciation	$447.75		Repairs: replacement of blinds (less depreciation
Replacement of garage remote	$165.00		Replacement of garage remote
Balance from bond (refunded to landlord for rent arrears		$248.57	Balance from bond (refunded to landlord for rent arrears
Total award	$7,448.15	$248.57
Net award	$7,199.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,199.58

Claims and awards for application 5184251 — net $7,199.58 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation

Amount: $3,750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation

Cleaning

Amount: $670.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $212.40
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in

Amount: $1,950.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in

Rubbish removal

Amount: $253.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Niamh Hanna and Tyson Wirihana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited- Acting Agent For Thi Huong Duyen Tran $7,199.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The bond has since been refunded to the landlord and credited towards rent arrears, some water rates and carpet cleaning.

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 garage remote was not returned.
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: blinds, skirting boards, door frames, walls, garage ceiling and flooring. 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.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184251 — net $7,199.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation	$3,750.00		Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation
Cleaning	$670.00		Cleaning
Water rates	$212.40		Water rates
Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in	$1,950.00		Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in
Rubbish removal	$253.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: replacement of blinds (less depreciation	$447.75		Repairs: replacement of blinds (less depreciation
Replacement of garage remote	$165.00		Replacement of garage remote
Balance from bond (refunded to landlord for rent arrears		$248.57	Balance from bond (refunded to landlord for rent arrears
Total award	$7,448.15	$248.57
Net award	$7,199.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,199.58

Claims and awards for application 5184251 — net $7,199.58 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation

Amount: $3,750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: carpet replacement (less depreciation

Cleaning

Amount: $670.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Water rates

Amount: $212.40
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in

Amount: $1,950.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: skirting boards, door frames, walls, hole in

Rubbish removal

Amount: $253.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Niamh Hanna and Tyson Wirihana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited- Acting Agent For Thi Huong Duyen Tran $7,199.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The bond has since been refunded to the landlord and credited towards rent arrears, some water rates and carpet cleaning.

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 garage remote was not returned.
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: blinds, skirting boards, door frames, walls, garage ceiling and flooring. 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184251 — Property damage at 7 Lippiatt Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184251 — Property damage at 7 Lippiatt Crescent, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

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