What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346143 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay $1,537.46 to Tremain Property

How much money was awarded in case 5346143?

1. Riki-Lee Hira And Adam Porter To…: $1,537.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346143?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12652243-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346143 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay $1,537.46 to Tremain Property

How much money was awarded in case 5346143?

1. Riki-Lee Hira And Adam Porter To…: $1,537.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346143?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12652243-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Rangiamohia Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346143 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346143. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Riki-Lee Hira and Adam Porter to pay	$1,537.46		1. Riki-Lee Hira and Adam Porter to pay

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay $1,537.46 to Tremain Property Management Ltd immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount ($) Glass repairs1,183.55 Door frame (one)261.81 Deck repairs1,200.92 Trailer hire40.00 Lawn clippings7.50 Rubbish removal37.10 Tree branches13.50 Rubbish / shed cleanup68.90 Door frame (two)61.22 Gloves / PPE20.96 DescriptionAmount ($) Cleaning (general and carpet)414.00 Subtotal3,309.46 Filing fee reimbursement28.00 Total3,337.46 Less bond already paid to landlord(1,800.00) Balance payable by tenant to landlord1,537.46

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended via MS Teams. The Tenant attended by phone with his mother as support.

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, 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.

Having reviewed the photographs with the Landlord on MS Teams and described what I have seen to the Tenant and invited their comment, I am satisfied the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and rubbish was left both inside and around the shed area.

The Landlord’s costs for general cleaning ($414.00 inclusive of carpet cleaning), rubbish removal ($37.10), shed rubbish ($68.90), tree branches ($13.50), and lawn clippings ($7.50) are modest and reasonably incurred to restore the premises to the state they should have been left in by the Tenant.

The trailer hire of $40.00 was a reasonable step to remove rubbish. Gloves/PPE ($20.96) are minor consequential costs directly associated with that work. All are proved and reasonable.

The Landlord’s evidence of cleaning and disposal costs was credible, modest, and supported by receipts and invoices. The sums claimed for general cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, and associated expenses are reasonable and 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 Landlord’s evidence, supported by contemporaneous photographs, established a pattern of significant damage to interior joinery and fittings. Door frames throughout the dwelling were gouged and chewed, and one door was split. The Landlord attributed this to the Tenant’s dog. The Tenant accepted that his dog had caused some damage but suggested it was minor. The Tenant said that some doors were widened for wheelchair access at the start of the tenancy, but the Landlord would have to expect some dents and dings from his wheelchair. Having reviewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the extent of the gouging and splitting goes well beyond fair wear and tear.

There was also damage to five windowpanes, mostly in the lounge and kitchen areas. A mirror inside the dwelling was also broken. The Tenant did not dispute this but said it was an accident. The cost of replacement is modest and proved.

The Tenant disputed the number of broken windowpanes, saying one may have been cracked after the tenancy, but the Landlord’s photographic evidence clearly showed multiple fresh breaks consistent with impact damage during the tenancy, and the Landlord had completed an exit inspection with the Tenant present (not the same tenant attending the hearing), and had identified each of the broken pains at that time. I accept the Landlord’s evidence and find that the cost of replacing the windowpanes is proved and reasonable.

The Landlord also sought reimbursement for repair of the exterior deck, deck step and trellis. The trellis was originally removed during the tenancy to provide privacy for the Tenant, who uses a wheelchair, when he accessed the outside shower. The modification was agreed to by the Landlord and funded by ACC. ACC has since declined to pay for reinstatement of the structure. The Landlord has replaced the step and trellis. There has been damage to the deck itself, which has required broken wood to be removed and replaced. The Landlord claims the cost of materials and labour. Those costs are reasonable.

The amount claimed of $1,200 is supported by material invoices and, given the extent of the repair required, is reasonable.

I am satisfied that each of these items represents damage occurring during the tenancy, caused carelessly rather than by fair wear and tear. The Landlord’s costs are supported by evidence and are reasonable.

In assessing the award, I have considered depreciation and betterment. The Landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the Tenant met their obligations and should not be left better or worse off. The amounts allowed reflect that principle.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346143. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Riki-Lee Hira and Adam Porter to pay	$1,537.46		1. Riki-Lee Hira and Adam Porter to pay

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended via MS Teams. The Tenant attended by phone with his mother as support.

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?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The trailer hire of $40.00 was a reasonable step to remove rubbish. Gloves/PPE ($20.96) are minor consequential costs directly associated with that work. All are proved and reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amount claimed of $1,200 is supported by material invoices and, given the extent of the repair required, is reasonable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346143 — Cleanliness at 61 Rangiamohia Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346143 — Cleanliness at 61 Rangiamohia Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334

At a glance

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

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