What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5390941?

The tribunal order states: Andre Uncles and Kimberlee Monique Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And

How much money was awarded in case 5390941?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Internal Surface Of Under Sink…: $279.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $332.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $118.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood Filter: $66.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet Roll Holder: $32.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390941?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13038379-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5390941?

The tribunal order states: Andre Uncles and Kimberlee Monique Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And

How much money was awarded in case 5390941?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Internal Surface Of Under Sink…: $279.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $332.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $118.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood Filter: $66.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Toilet Roll Holder: $32.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390941?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13038379-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 York Place, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390941 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390941 — net $805.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace missing and damaged vanity doors	$332.68	Replace missing and damaged vanity doors
Paint internal surface of under sink cabinet	$279.00	Paint internal surface of under sink cabinet
Repairs of damage to the wall	$118.43	Repairs of damage to the wall
Replace rangehood filter	$66.13	Replace rangehood filter
Replace toilet roll holder	$32.88	Replace toilet roll holder
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$805.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$805.12

Ms Smith, representative of the landlord, attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone. Two attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone, but they were unsuccessful. The tenant had not communicated with the Tribunal as to why they would not attend the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord was initially claiming $692.75 (including GST) for general cleaning, $104.26 (including GST) to clean the kitchen cupboards and $24.23 (including GST) to clean the range hood. During the hearing, the landlord reduced the claim for all cleaning to $200.00 including GST.

Having reviewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the bathroom and laundry reasonably clean and tidy and that $200 (including GST) is a reasonable sum for this work. This claim is proved.

The landlord is also claiming for a missing toilet roll holder. The photographs show that the holder was removed. This claim is proved, and I award $32.88 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.

Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).

Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.

Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.

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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the vanity doors and handle; damage to the under sink cabinet surfaces and the cabinet door; damage to a wall; damage to a range hood filter. During the hearing, the landlord withdraw a claim to replace the vanity door handle.

Having reviewed the evidence presented by the landlord including photographs from the start and the end of the tenancy, I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless.

I award the sums sought by the landlord apart from the painting of the internal surface of the under-sink cabinets. The landlord advised these surfaces have not been painted for at least the duration of the tenancy. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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.

The landlord said that those surfaces would probably require repainting every 12 years. The tenancy lasted for just under 8 years. I have reduced the amount ordered for the painting of the under-sink cabinet surfaces to reflect that these surfaces would be due to be repainted in approximately 4 years. Filing fee:

The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390941 — net $805.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace missing and damaged vanity doors	$332.68	Replace missing and damaged vanity doors
Paint internal surface of under sink cabinet	$279.00	Paint internal surface of under sink cabinet
Repairs of damage to the wall	$118.43	Repairs of damage to the wall
Replace rangehood filter	$66.13	Replace rangehood filter
Replace toilet roll holder	$32.88	Replace toilet roll holder
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$805.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$805.12

Order

Andre Uncles and Kimberlee Monique Olsen must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $828.19 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $252.00 (BN- 10051024) to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

Ms Smith, representative of the landlord, attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone. Two attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone, but they were unsuccessful. The tenant had not communicated with the Tribunal as to why they would not attend the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord was initially claiming $692.75 (including GST) for general cleaning, $104.26 (including GST) to clean the kitchen cupboards and $24.23 (including GST) to clean the range hood. During the hearing, the landlord reduced the claim for all cleaning to $200.00 including GST.
Having reviewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the bathroom and laundry reasonably clean and tidy and that $200 (including GST) is a reasonable sum for this work. This claim is proved.
The landlord is also claiming for a missing toilet roll holder. The photographs show that the holder was removed. This claim is proved, and I award $32.88 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the vanity doors and handle; damage to the under sink cabinet surfaces and the cabinet door; damage to a wall; damage to a range hood filter. During the hearing, the landlord withdraw a claim to replace the vanity door handle.
Having reviewed the evidence presented by the landlord including photographs from the start and the end of the tenancy, I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless.
I award the sums sought by the landlord apart from the painting of the internal surface of the under-sink cabinets. The landlord advised these surfaces have not been painted for at least the duration of the tenancy. I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. 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.
The landlord said that those surfaces would probably require repainting every 12 years. The tenancy lasted for just under 8 years. I have reduced the amount ordered for the painting of the under-sink cabinet surfaces to reflect that these surfaces would be due to be repainted in approximately 4 years. Filing fee:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390941 — Property damage at 20 York Place, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390941 — Property damage at 20 York Place, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

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