What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445912?

The tribunal order states: Michael James Stanley Lock must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5445912?

Rubbish Removal: $460.63 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $585.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445912?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13598091-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445912?

The tribunal order states: Michael James Stanley Lock must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5445912?

Rubbish Removal: $460.63 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $585.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445912?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13598091-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Ellesmere Crescent, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445912 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445912 — net $1,045.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$460.63	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: carpet	$585.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Net award	$1,045.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,045.63

The landlord attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence showed that the tenant took what he wanted and left anything else behind without making any attempt to clean the property or remove rubbish.

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 that the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 1 were badly stained after a tenancy lasting just over seven months. Because of its nature and extent it is reasonable to conclude that the damage was intentional. The landlord gave evidence that the staining could not be removed by cleaning and that the carpets required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The Tribunal must consider 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.

The amount ordered includes a deduction for depreciation as the landlord provided evidence that the carpets were six years old.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445912 — net $1,045.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$460.63	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: carpet	$585.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Net award	$1,045.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,045.63

Order

Michael James Stanley Lock must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,045.63 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning: and rubbish removal$460.63 Replace furnishings: carpet$585.00 Total award$1,045.63 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,045.63

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence showed that the tenant took what he wanted and left anything else behind without making any attempt to clean the property or remove rubbish.
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 that the carpet in the lounge and bedroom 1 were badly stained after a tenancy lasting just over seven months. Because of its nature and extent it is reasonable to conclude that the damage was intentional. The landlord gave evidence that the staining could not be removed by cleaning and that the carpets required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The Tribunal must consider 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.
The amount ordered includes a deduction for depreciation as the landlord provided evidence that the carpets were six years old.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445912 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Ellesmere Crescent, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445912 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Ellesmere Crescent, 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