What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343022 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 5343022?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Lounge: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Interior: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343022?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12903670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343022 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 5343022?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Lounge: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Interior: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343022?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12903670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343022 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343022 — net $5,778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal and cleaning	$3,000.00	Rubbish removal and cleaning
Repairs: Carpet lounge	$1,000.00	Repairs: Carpet lounge
Repairs: Repaint interior	$1,500.00	Repairs: Repaint interior
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,778.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,778.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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 reasonably clean or tidy and did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord provided the outgoing condition report and photographs showing a large amount of rubbish left behind, including furniture, white goods, a barbeque, bicycles and outdoor toys.
The Landlord also provided an invoice to support the costs claimed for rubbish removal and cleaning.
The Tenant disputed the amount claimed, saying that only four skip bins would have been required, which he estimated would have cost about $2,000.00.
After considering the evidence, I note that the invoice provided by the Landlord includes cleaning and labour, not just skip bins. Given the amount of rubbish left at the property and the poor condition it was left in, it is clear that labour and cleaning would have been required regardless of how many skip bins were used.
I am satisfied that the costs claimed by the Landlord for rubbish removal and cleaning are reasonable in the circumstances. The Tenant’s estimate does not take into account the labour and cleaning involved.
The amounts claimed are therefore proven.
The Landlord also claimed costs for cleaning carpet stains in bedroom 3. The Landlord said the stains were caused by food, dirt and urine, and provided photographs of the bedroom. These were not close up photographs of the carpet but shots of the bedroom itself with furniture that the Landlord left behind.
The Tenant said he could not see any stains in the photographs and did not recall any stains. He also said that although he owned a dog, the dog was kept outside on a chain.
In considering the evidence, I find that the photographs do not clearly show carpet stains, as much of the carpet is covered by items left behind by the Tenant. The Landlord also did not provide independent evidence, such as a report or invoice from a professional cleaner, to confirm that stains existed or that specialist cleaning was required.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
The Tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. As a result, the front and back door locks had to be replaced. The Landlord provided an invoice for this work. I am satisfied that these costs were reasonably incurred due to the Tenant’s failure to return the keys.
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.
During the tenancy, damage was caused to the interior walls, including scribbles, scuff marks and dents. Damage also occurred to the lounge carpet. The Landlord claimed $2,500.00 for repainting the entire interior of the house and provided photographs showing marks on walls in various rooms. The Landlord submitted that the property had been repainted shortly before the tenancy commenced. The ingoing and outgoing condition reports were provided.
On reviewing the reports and photographs, I note that scribble marks were present in several bedrooms, with the most significant damage concentrated in bedroom 3. There were also minor marks in the laundry. Photographs of other areas of the house show some marks in parts of the property, however not throughout. In particular, the photographs of the hallway, bathroom and toilet do not show any damage to the walls.
I am satisfied that the damage to the walls goes beyond fair wear and tear. However, the evidence does not support the Landlord’s claim that the entire interior required repainting. Given that the damage was limited to certain rooms and areas, I find that a full repaint of the house was not necessary. In the circumstances, I consider a reduced amount of $1,500.00 to be a reasonable cost for repainting the affected areas.
The Landlord claimed $1800.00 to replace the carpet in the lounge due to pet urine and mould/ Photographs were provided of the mould. The Tenant refuted this cost stating again that the dog was never in the house. Ingoing and outgoing reports and an invoice was provided for the replacement carpet. Upon perusing the photographs, the stain was substantial however there was no independent evidence provided to confirm the stain was unable to be professionally removed and replacement was necessary.
For this reason only a partial award is granted of $1000.00.
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 [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant shall reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord. As the tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343022 — net $5,778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal and cleaning	$3,000.00	Rubbish removal and cleaning
Repairs: Carpet lounge	$1,000.00	Repairs: Carpet lounge
Repairs: Repaint interior	$1,500.00	Repairs: Repaint interior
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,778.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,778.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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 reasonably clean or tidy and did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord provided the outgoing condition report and photographs showing a large amount of rubbish left behind, including furniture, white goods, a barbeque, bicycles and outdoor toys.
The Landlord also provided an invoice to support the costs claimed for rubbish removal and cleaning.
The Tenant disputed the amount claimed, saying that only four skip bins would have been required, which he estimated would have cost about $2,000.00.
After considering the evidence, I note that the invoice provided by the Landlord includes cleaning and labour, not just skip bins. Given the amount of rubbish left at the property and the poor condition it was left in, it is clear that labour and cleaning would have been required regardless of how many skip bins were used.
I am satisfied that the costs claimed by the Landlord for rubbish removal and cleaning are reasonable in the circumstances. The Tenant’s estimate does not take into account the labour and cleaning involved.
The amounts claimed are therefore proven.
The Landlord also claimed costs for cleaning carpet stains in bedroom 3. The Landlord said the stains were caused by food, dirt and urine, and provided photographs of the bedroom. These were not close up photographs of the carpet but shots of the bedroom itself with furniture that the Landlord left behind.
The Tenant said he could not see any stains in the photographs and did not recall any stains. He also said that although he owned a dog, the dog was kept outside on a chain.
In considering the evidence, I find that the photographs do not clearly show carpet stains, as much of the carpet is covered by items left behind by the Tenant. The Landlord also did not provide independent evidence, such as a report or invoice from a professional cleaner, to confirm that stains existed or that specialist cleaning was required.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
The Tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. As a result, the front and back door locks had to be replaced. The Landlord provided an invoice for this work. I am satisfied that these costs were reasonably incurred due to the Tenant’s failure to return the keys.
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.
During the tenancy, damage was caused to the interior walls, including scribbles, scuff marks and dents. Damage also occurred to the lounge carpet. The Landlord claimed $2,500.00 for repainting the entire interior of the house and provided photographs showing marks on walls in various rooms. The Landlord submitted that the property had been repainted shortly before the tenancy commenced. The ingoing and outgoing condition reports were provided.
On reviewing the reports and photographs, I note that scribble marks were present in several bedrooms, with the most significant damage concentrated in bedroom 3. There were also minor marks in the laundry. Photographs of other areas of the house show some marks in parts of the property, however not throughout. In particular, the photographs of the hallway, bathroom and toilet do not show any damage to the walls.
I am satisfied that the damage to the walls goes beyond fair wear and tear. However, the evidence does not support the Landlord’s claim that the entire interior required repainting. Given that the damage was limited to certain rooms and areas, I find that a full repaint of the house was not necessary. In the circumstances, I consider a reduced amount of $1,500.00 to be a reasonable cost for repainting the affected areas.
The Landlord claimed $1800.00 to replace the carpet in the lounge due to pet urine and mould/ Photographs were provided of the mould. The Tenant refuted this cost stating again that the dog was never in the house. Ingoing and outgoing reports and an invoice was provided for the replacement carpet. Upon perusing the photographs, the stain was substantial however there was no independent evidence provided to confirm the stain was unable to be professionally removed and replacement was necessary.
For this reason only a partial award is granted of $1000.00.
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 [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant shall reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord. As the tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343022 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343022 — Property damage

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

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