What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253580 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5253580?

Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; External Painting: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting Board: $100.00 awarded to landlord; TV Connection: $221.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253580?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12007262-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253580 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5253580?

Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; External Painting: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Skirting Board: $100.00 awarded to landlord; TV Connection: $221.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253580?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12007262-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

83B Rugby Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5253580 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253580 — net $1,548.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: TV connection	$221.38	Repairs: TV connection
Repairs: external painting	$100.00	Repairs: external painting
Repairs: front door	$500.00	Repairs: front door
Repairs: internal doors	$500.00	Repairs: internal doors
Repairs: skirting board	$100.00	Repairs: skirting board
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$100.00	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,548.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,548.38

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ethan Thorburn, Rebecca Corby, Luke Martin and James Hodgson to pay [The landlord/s] $1,548.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to the landlord.
The landlord is to disburse the bond as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,548.38 Ethan Thorburn, Rebecca Corby, Luke Martin and James Hodgson: $651.62 DescriptionLandlord Repairs: TV connection$221.38 Repairs: external painting$100.00 Repairs: front door$500.00 Repairs: internal doors$500.00 Repairs: skirting board$100.00 Cleaning: and rubbish removal$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,548.38 Bond$1,548.38$651.62

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that some areas of the property were not left reasonably clean and tidy and some items were left behind.
The tenant accepted that some areas will have required some further work. He advised that as the landlord was to undertake extensive renovations, there was no point in cleaning some of the areas. He denied that the items in the garage were left behind by any of the tenants. He believes that they were present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not have evidence of what was at the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not therefore persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was responsible for disposal of all of the items in the garage.
An amount is awarded to the landlord for some limited cleaning and the removal of the few items which the tenant accepted were his.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and was accepted by the tenant: a. The tenant allowed ivy to grow over an external wall and when it was removed it caused some damage to a limited area. This was careless damage. b. A dog had scratched the front door and frame, together with five internal doors. A short length of skirting by the stairs had been damaged by a dog. This was intentional damage using the reasoning in Guo v Korck referred to above.
The landlord also claimed $500.00 towards a small area of carpet damage on a stair that it claimed was caused by a dog. The tenant did not accept this claim. From the landlord’s photographs the carpet was at the end of its useful life. The landlord could not estimate its age but from its condition it appeared more than eight years old. Based on the Inland Revenue Department’s estimate of useful life, it therefore had no value. In addition, the parties believe that the landlord replaced all of the carpet in the property as part of extensive renovations preparatory to placing it on the market. From its position on a stair, the damage could equally have been fair wear and tear. No evidence of the cost of the carpet or of any attempt to repair the area with a patch was submitted to the Tribunal. The landlord’s carpet claim is dismissed.
The amount claimed by the landlord for repairs were unsupported by any evidence such as receipts other than a quotation that recommended replacing the front door as it would be half the cost of repairs. The landlord has proven damage but has not provided satisfactory evidence to quantify his actual loss. This is especially problematic where the landlord is undertaking extensive renovations.
The Tribunal must consider 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 doors appear to be original to the property which is approximately 45 years old. The Tribunal is also well aware from the cases it sees regularly in this area that the cost of replacing internal doors is often a fraction of the cost of repair. Similarly, the outside paint appeared very tired and at the end of its useful life. Once again, no receipts to evidence the landlord’s loss were provided.
Having considered these factors, appropriate sums have been awarded to the landlord based on invoices for similar works which the Tribunal sees in this area on a regular basis, taking into account the age and condition of the items.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. The bond
The landlord gave evidence that Ethan Thorburn, the only tenant who appeared at the hearing, has paid the bulk of the bond to the Bond Centre. He has therefore become primarily liable for the compensation awarded the landlord in this order.
The parties agreed that the bond be paid in full to the landlord so that it can disburse the bond in accordance with the terms of this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253580 — net $1,548.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: TV connection	$221.38	Repairs: TV connection
Repairs: external painting	$100.00	Repairs: external painting
Repairs: front door	$500.00	Repairs: front door
Repairs: internal doors	$500.00	Repairs: internal doors
Repairs: skirting board	$100.00	Repairs: skirting board
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$100.00	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,548.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,548.38

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ethan Thorburn, Rebecca Corby, Luke Martin and James Hodgson to pay [The landlord/s] $1,548.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to the landlord.
The landlord is to disburse the bond as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,548.38 Ethan Thorburn, Rebecca Corby, Luke Martin and James Hodgson: $651.62 DescriptionLandlord Repairs: TV connection$221.38 Repairs: external painting$100.00 Repairs: front door$500.00 Repairs: internal doors$500.00 Repairs: skirting board$100.00 Cleaning: and rubbish removal$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,548.38 Bond$1,548.38$651.62

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that some areas of the property were not left reasonably clean and tidy and some items were left behind.
The tenant accepted that some areas will have required some further work. He advised that as the landlord was to undertake extensive renovations, there was no point in cleaning some of the areas. He denied that the items in the garage were left behind by any of the tenants. He believes that they were present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not have evidence of what was at the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not therefore persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was responsible for disposal of all of the items in the garage.
An amount is awarded to the landlord for some limited cleaning and the removal of the few items which the tenant accepted were his.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and was accepted by the tenant: a. The tenant allowed ivy to grow over an external wall and when it was removed it caused some damage to a limited area. This was careless damage. b. A dog had scratched the front door and frame, together with five internal doors. A short length of skirting by the stairs had been damaged by a dog. This was intentional damage using the reasoning in Guo v Korck referred to above.
The landlord also claimed $500.00 towards a small area of carpet damage on a stair that it claimed was caused by a dog. The tenant did not accept this claim. From the landlord’s photographs the carpet was at the end of its useful life. The landlord could not estimate its age but from its condition it appeared more than eight years old. Based on the Inland Revenue Department’s estimate of useful life, it therefore had no value. In addition, the parties believe that the landlord replaced all of the carpet in the property as part of extensive renovations preparatory to placing it on the market. From its position on a stair, the damage could equally have been fair wear and tear. No evidence of the cost of the carpet or of any attempt to repair the area with a patch was submitted to the Tribunal. The landlord’s carpet claim is dismissed.
The amount claimed by the landlord for repairs were unsupported by any evidence such as receipts other than a quotation that recommended replacing the front door as it would be half the cost of repairs. The landlord has proven damage but has not provided satisfactory evidence to quantify his actual loss. This is especially problematic where the landlord is undertaking extensive renovations.
The Tribunal must consider 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 doors appear to be original to the property which is approximately 45 years old. The Tribunal is also well aware from the cases it sees regularly in this area that the cost of replacing internal doors is often a fraction of the cost of repair. Similarly, the outside paint appeared very tired and at the end of its useful life. Once again, no receipts to evidence the landlord’s loss were provided.
Having considered these factors, appropriate sums have been awarded to the landlord based on invoices for similar works which the Tribunal sees in this area on a regular basis, taking into account the age and condition of the items.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. The bond
The landlord gave evidence that Ethan Thorburn, the only tenant who appeared at the hearing, has paid the bulk of the bond to the Bond Centre. He has therefore become primarily liable for the compensation awarded the landlord in this order.
The parties agreed that the bond be paid in full to the landlord so that it can disburse the bond in accordance with the terms of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253580 — Property damage at 83B Rugby Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253580 — Property damage at 83B Rugby Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

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

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

Frequently asked questions