What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274660?

The tribunal order states: Dylan Timothy Kevin Hatt must pay Metge Properties Limited $579.99

How much money was awarded in case 5274660?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,952.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274660?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12171763-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274660?

The tribunal order states: Dylan Timothy Kevin Hatt must pay Metge Properties Limited $579.99

How much money was awarded in case 5274660?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,952.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274660?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12171763-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42D Comins Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274660 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5274660 — net $579.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,952.99	Repairs
Cleaning: Oven by consent	$70.00	Cleaning: Oven by consent
Cleaning: Shower	$50.00	Cleaning: Shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$579.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$579.99

Order

Dylan Timothy Kevin Hatt must pay Metge Properties Limited $579.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (3164774-014) to Metge Properties Limited immediately.

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.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

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 reasonably clean and tidy. The shower was not left in a clean condition. A photograph of the dirty shower and an invoice from the cleaner was provided to substantiate the costs. The Tenant submitted the shower was around 15-20 years old and he left it in a better condition than when he moved in. The Tenant agreed to paying for the cleaning of the oven.
In considering the evidence, I find from the photograph and cleaning invoice that the shower was not left in a clean condition.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: ripped curtain and damaged fence.
The Landlord claimed for the replacement of a bedroom curtain due to a rip. A photograph of the ripped curtain and receipt for the replacement was provided however there was no photograph of the curtain prior to the tenancy to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The Tenant submitted the curtain was already ripped.
In considering the evidence, there was no pre-tenancy evidence such as a property inspection report to show this curtain was not damage before the tenancy started.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord sought costs for damage to the fence caused by the Tenant. The Landlord submitted that when the Tenant was vacating the property, a truck driven by the Tenant’s father reversed down the driveway, struck part of the fence, causing it to become unstable. The fence reportedly tipped, was propped up, and then the truck had driven away.
When the Landlord attended the property a few days later, the landlord noticed the fence was leaning. Upon checking with tenants in the neighbouring block of units, they confirmed seeing the truck reverse down the driveway and reported hearing a loud crashing sound.
Two witness written statements from neighbours were provided. They confirmed that they heard the removal truck and a loud bang consistent with a collision. One neighbour then saw men attempting to prop the fence up after that and they confirmed the truck was there for the Tenant. Another neighbour, Ms. Muhl, gave oral evidence stating she heard the incident, had observed no prior damage to the fence before that weekend but saw the damaged fence which was not there before that incident. She reported she did not personally know the Tenant and only had neutral interactions with the tenant. Photographs of the damaged fence were provided and an invoice was provided to substantiate the cost of repairs. The Landlord did not provide any pre-let tenancy photographs of the fence.
The Tenant submitted they did not damage the fence and the removal truck they hired showed no signs of damage. No one also witnessed the Tenant or his father damaging the fence and the fence was old.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant caused damage to the fence from the statements provided by the neighbours. Although they did not witness the incident, they heard the collision and saw people propping up the fence. Although there was no pre-inspection report to show the fence was intact, the statements from Ms Muhl indicating the damage to the fence was not present before that collision was more persuasive. Furthermore, Ms Muhl came across as a reliable honest witness that had no reason to fabricate her evidence. I find 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.
As Metge Properties Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5274660 — net $579.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,952.99	Repairs
Cleaning: Oven by consent	$70.00	Cleaning: Oven by consent
Cleaning: Shower	$50.00	Cleaning: Shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$579.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$579.99

Order

Dylan Timothy Kevin Hatt must pay Metge Properties Limited $579.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (3164774-014) to Metge Properties Limited immediately.

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.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

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 reasonably clean and tidy. The shower was not left in a clean condition. A photograph of the dirty shower and an invoice from the cleaner was provided to substantiate the costs. The Tenant submitted the shower was around 15-20 years old and he left it in a better condition than when he moved in. The Tenant agreed to paying for the cleaning of the oven.
In considering the evidence, I find from the photograph and cleaning invoice that the shower was not left in a clean condition.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: ripped curtain and damaged fence.
The Landlord claimed for the replacement of a bedroom curtain due to a rip. A photograph of the ripped curtain and receipt for the replacement was provided however there was no photograph of the curtain prior to the tenancy to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The Tenant submitted the curtain was already ripped.
In considering the evidence, there was no pre-tenancy evidence such as a property inspection report to show this curtain was not damage before the tenancy started.
The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord sought costs for damage to the fence caused by the Tenant. The Landlord submitted that when the Tenant was vacating the property, a truck driven by the Tenant’s father reversed down the driveway, struck part of the fence, causing it to become unstable. The fence reportedly tipped, was propped up, and then the truck had driven away.
When the Landlord attended the property a few days later, the landlord noticed the fence was leaning. Upon checking with tenants in the neighbouring block of units, they confirmed seeing the truck reverse down the driveway and reported hearing a loud crashing sound.
Two witness written statements from neighbours were provided. They confirmed that they heard the removal truck and a loud bang consistent with a collision. One neighbour then saw men attempting to prop the fence up after that and they confirmed the truck was there for the Tenant. Another neighbour, Ms. Muhl, gave oral evidence stating she heard the incident, had observed no prior damage to the fence before that weekend but saw the damaged fence which was not there before that incident. She reported she did not personally know the Tenant and only had neutral interactions with the tenant. Photographs of the damaged fence were provided and an invoice was provided to substantiate the cost of repairs. The Landlord did not provide any pre-let tenancy photographs of the fence.
The Tenant submitted they did not damage the fence and the removal truck they hired showed no signs of damage. No one also witnessed the Tenant or his father damaging the fence and the fence was old.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant caused damage to the fence from the statements provided by the neighbours. Although they did not witness the incident, they heard the collision and saw people propping up the fence. Although there was no pre-inspection report to show the fence was intact, the statements from Ms Muhl indicating the damage to the fence was not present before that collision was more persuasive. Furthermore, Ms Muhl came across as a reliable honest witness that had no reason to fabricate her evidence. I find 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.
As Metge Properties Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274660 — Property damage at 42D Comins Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274660 — Property damage at 42D Comins Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

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