How much money was awarded in case 5347382?

Property Damage: $735.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 1: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 3: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: air conditionin…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and tr…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347382?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12731982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5347382?

Property Damage: $735.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 1: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 3: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: air conditionin…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and tr…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347382?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12731982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

40 Farnham Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347382 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347382 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347382 — net $1,805.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$240.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$735.00	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote	$150.00	Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote
Replace furnishings: curtains and tracks	$500.00	Replace furnishings: curtains and tracks
Repairs: lounge	$1,000.00	Repairs: lounge
Repairs: bedroom 1	$200.00	Repairs: bedroom 1
Repairs: bedroom 2	$320.00	Repairs: bedroom 2
Repairs: bedroom 3	$600.00	Repairs: bedroom 3
Net award	$1,805.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,805.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Haamiora Marsden and Maraea Marsden must pay [The landlord/s] $1,805.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$240.00 Window repairs$735.00 Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote$150.00 Replace furnishings: curtains and tracks$500.00 Repairs: lounge$1,000.00 Repairs: bedroom 1$200.00 Repairs: bedroom 2$320.00 Repairs: bedroom 3$600.00 Total award$3,745.00 Bond$1,940.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,805.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant’s claims

The tenant did not attend the hearing or submit any evidence in support of their claims.

The tenant has failed to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities and so the tenant’s claims are dismissed. The landlord’s claims

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 remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Curtains in the living room and all three bedrooms. b. Curtain track in the living room, bedroom 1 and bedroom 3. c. The air-conditioning remote.

The landlord was uncertain of the age of the curtains. From the photographic evidence of the remaining curtains, it appears that they were in reasonable and serviceable condition. An allowance has been made for depreciation so that by replacing the curtains with new curtains, the landlord is not in a better position than it would have been had the old curtains remained.

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: a. Windows in the laundry and lounge were broken. b. There were multiple holes in the walls of the lounge which had been inexpertly repaired and left unpainted. c. A window latch in bedroom 1 was broken. d. The door frame in bedroom 2 was broken. e. There was graffiti in bedroom 2. f. The wardrobe door handle was missing in bedroom 3. g. The door to bedroom 3 was broken beyond repair. h. There was a hole in the wall and graffiti in bedroom 3.

The claims for painting and touch up of some areas of scuffing and small tears to the wallpaper are likely to be fair wear and tear. The remaining damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From the nature and extent of the damage, it was intentional damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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. Amounts have been awarded that reflect the estimated age of the items damaged and their residual utility value. The amounts claimed are modest and in keeping with claims which the Tribunal regularly sees for similar work in this area.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5347382 — net $1,805.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$240.00	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$735.00	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote	$150.00	Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote
Replace furnishings: curtains and tracks	$500.00	Replace furnishings: curtains and tracks
Repairs: lounge	$1,000.00	Repairs: lounge
Repairs: bedroom 1	$200.00	Repairs: bedroom 1
Repairs: bedroom 2	$320.00	Repairs: bedroom 2
Repairs: bedroom 3	$600.00	Repairs: bedroom 3
Net award	$1,805.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,805.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Haamiora Marsden and Maraea Marsden must pay [The landlord/s] $1,805.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$240.00 Window repairs$735.00 Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote$150.00 Replace furnishings: curtains and tracks$500.00 Repairs: lounge$1,000.00 Repairs: bedroom 1$200.00 Repairs: bedroom 2$320.00 Repairs: bedroom 3$600.00 Total award$3,745.00 Bond$1,940.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,805.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant’s claims
The tenant did not attend the hearing or submit any evidence in support of their claims.
The tenant has failed to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities and so the tenant’s claims are dismissed. The landlord’s claims
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 remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Curtains in the living room and all three bedrooms. b. Curtain track in the living room, bedroom 1 and bedroom 3. c. The air-conditioning remote.
The landlord was uncertain of the age of the curtains. From the photographic evidence of the remaining curtains, it appears that they were in reasonable and serviceable condition. An allowance has been made for depreciation so that by replacing the curtains with new curtains, the landlord is not in a better position than it would have been had the old curtains remained.
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: a. Windows in the laundry and lounge were broken. b. There were multiple holes in the walls of the lounge which had been inexpertly repaired and left unpainted. c. A window latch in bedroom 1 was broken. d. The door frame in bedroom 2 was broken. e. There was graffiti in bedroom 2. f. The wardrobe door handle was missing in bedroom 3. g. The door to bedroom 3 was broken beyond repair. h. There was a hole in the wall and graffiti in bedroom 3.
The claims for painting and touch up of some areas of scuffing and small tears to the wallpaper are likely to be fair wear and tear. The remaining damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From the nature and extent of the damage, it was intentional damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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. Amounts have been awarded that reflect the estimated age of the items damaged and their residual utility value. The amounts claimed are modest and in keeping with claims which the Tribunal regularly sees for similar work in this area.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347382 — Property damage at 40 Farnham Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347382 — Property damage at 40 Farnham Avenue, Highbury, 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