What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5377812?

The tribunal order states: Kevin Harris and Jody Trewheela must pay Antony Christopher Graham

How much money was awarded in case 5377812?

Cleaning: $670.74 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling From Flood: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Gate Remotes: $234.60 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $301.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13584829-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5377812?

The tribunal order states: Kevin Harris and Jody Trewheela must pay Antony Christopher Graham

How much money was awarded in case 5377812?

Cleaning: $670.74 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling From Flood: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Gate Remotes: $234.60 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $301.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13584829-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

95R Mays Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5377812 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377812 — net $424.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$301.16	Water rates
Cleaning	$670.74	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: gate remotes	$234.60	Replace furnishings: gate remotes
Repairs: ceiling from flood	$1,000.00	Repairs: ceiling from flood
Repairs: bedroom wall damage	$350.00	Repairs: bedroom wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$424.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$424.50

Kevin Harris and Jody Trewheela must pay Antony Christopher Graham $424.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (5289384-006) to Antony Christopher Graham immediately. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$301.16 Cleaning$670.74 Replace furnishings: gate remotes$234.60 Repairs: ceiling from flood$1,000.00 Repairs: bedroom wall damage$350.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,584.50 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$424.50

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water?

The landlord provided evidence of an outstanding charge for water usage during the last period 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 return all security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. He gave evidence that the premises had not been vacuumed or mopped, the oven cleaned, or the surfaces wiped down.

The landlord gave evidence that two gate remotes went missing during the tenancy and provided evidence of the cost incurred in replacement.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence of the following damage caused during the tenancy: a. There were several areas of damage to the walls in the bedrooms caused by the removal of hooks or some form of attachment. b. There was substantial paint removed from the bedroom door which the landlord claimed was more than fair wear and tear. c. The ceiling in the bathroom required repainting which the landlord claimed was because the tenant did not keep the ceiling sufficiently clean. d. There was damage to the ceiling of the lounge. The landlord explained that this was caused during a weather event that filled the ranch slider tracks in the bedroom above the lounge. He advised that as the tenant had not kept the drainage holes in the range slider tracks clean, they had become blocked and so the flooding occurred causing damage to the ceiling below.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it does not accept that the damage to the door and the bathroom ceiling was more than fair wear and tear given that this tenancy lasted nearly five years.

The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the lounge ceiling and to the walls of the bedrooms is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The damage is careless. The tenant’s liability for each item of damage is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess. This sum is awarded in relation to the ceiling repair and a lesser sum is awarded for the wall repairs having considered betterment and depreciation.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Antony Christopher Graham has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377812 — net $424.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$301.16	Water rates
Cleaning	$670.74	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: gate remotes	$234.60	Replace furnishings: gate remotes
Repairs: ceiling from flood	$1,000.00	Repairs: ceiling from flood
Repairs: bedroom wall damage	$350.00	Repairs: bedroom wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$424.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$424.50

Order

Kevin Harris and Jody Trewheela must pay Antony Christopher Graham $424.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (5289384-006) to Antony Christopher Graham immediately. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$301.16 Cleaning$670.74 Replace furnishings: gate remotes$234.60 Repairs: ceiling from flood$1,000.00 Repairs: bedroom wall damage$350.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,584.50 Bond$2,160.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$424.50

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water?

The landlord provided evidence of an outstanding charge for water usage during the last period 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 return all security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. He gave evidence that the premises had not been vacuumed or mopped, the oven cleaned, or the surfaces wiped down.
The landlord gave evidence that two gate remotes went missing during the tenancy and provided evidence of the cost incurred in replacement.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence of the following damage caused during the tenancy: a. There were several areas of damage to the walls in the bedrooms caused by the removal of hooks or some form of attachment. b. There was substantial paint removed from the bedroom door which the landlord claimed was more than fair wear and tear. c. The ceiling in the bathroom required repainting which the landlord claimed was because the tenant did not keep the ceiling sufficiently clean. d. There was damage to the ceiling of the lounge. The landlord explained that this was caused during a weather event that filled the ranch slider tracks in the bedroom above the lounge. He advised that as the tenant had not kept the drainage holes in the range slider tracks clean, they had become blocked and so the flooding occurred causing damage to the ceiling below.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it does not accept that the damage to the door and the bathroom ceiling was more than fair wear and tear given that this tenancy lasted nearly five years.
The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the lounge ceiling and to the walls of the bedrooms is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage is careless. The tenant’s liability for each item of damage is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess. This sum is awarded in relation to the ceiling repair and a lesser sum is awarded for the wall repairs having considered betterment and depreciation.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Antony Christopher Graham has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377812 — Property damage at 95R Mays Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377812 — Property damage at 95R Mays Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

How much is owed for water?

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