What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488729 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Alexica Investments Limited $6,690.38 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5488729?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Painting (Depreciated 50%),…: $2,431.10 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,490.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $462.73 awarded to landlord; Replace Cat Door, Cupboard And Drawe…: $358.66 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,330.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488729?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14026276-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488729 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Alexica Investments Limited $6,690.38 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5488729?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Painting (Depreciated 50%),…: $2,431.10 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,490.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $462.73 awarded to landlord; Replace Cat Door, Cupboard And Drawe…: $358.66 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,330.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488729?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14026276-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 McMurdo Street, Tinwald, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5488729 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5488729 — net $6,690.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace cat door, cupboard and drawer handles, replace curtains	$358.66	Replace cat door, cupboard and drawer handles, replace curtains
Interior painting (depreciated 50%), replace front door	$2,431.10	Interior painting (depreciated 50%), replace front door
Carpet replacement (depreciated 50	$2,490.00	Carpet replacement (depreciated 50
Cleaning, rubbish removal, and dump fees	$2,330.39	Cleaning, rubbish removal, and dump fees
Electrical repairs	$462.73	Electrical repairs
Lawns and garden work	$149.50	Lawns and garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,690.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,690.38

The landlord’s representative Ms Harwood attended the hearing by phone (approval given). I had separately allowed the landlord to attend by phone. Because he is in the UK, the Tribunal could not conduct a hearing with 2 parties by phone when one was overseas. Ms Harwood confirmed she had authority to represent the landlord at the hearing and she was happy to proceed.

The tenant did not attend the hearing scheduled in person at the Ashburton District Court. I am satisfied that proper notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.

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 his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of a 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 1 .

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Considerable cleaning was required, and a lot of rubbish had to be removed.

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 2 .

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) 3 .

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for 4 .

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 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 3 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 4 See section 49B(1) RTA person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty 5 .

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •The carpets and underlay were so damaged by animal soiling they had to be replaced. Ms Harwood gave evidence that the tenant had a dog and about 10 cats, and kittens. She said the degree of staining and the smell were extreme. •There were holes in walls that required repair before being repainted. •There were broken doors. •There were broken light fittings and power points and other electrical damage that made the premises unsafe. •A cat door had to be replaced as did cupboard and drawer handles. The front door lock was damaged, and an interior door handle had to be replaced. •There was damage to curtains likely caused by the cats.

Much of this damage would be considered intentional damage. For example, allowing animals to repeatedly soil carpets has been found to constitute intentional damage. The holes in walls and the damage to electrical fittings was also probably intentional damage.

The limitations on liability for careless damage do not apply in this case. Ms Harwood said the landlord was not insured for tenant damage so there had been no insurance claim.

The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Ms Harwood gave at the hearing.

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. For the claims for carpet replacement and interior paining I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ms Harwood said the premises were last redecorated and re-carpeted about 8 years before the tenancy started. So, allowing for the duration of the tenancy I must consider deprecation taking account of probably a 10-year age of the carpets and 10 years since redecoration.

For residential tenancy premises that means that depreciation of 50% is appropriate. I have reduced the painting and carpet replacement claims in line with that assessment. 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541

As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5488729 — net $6,690.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace cat door, cupboard and drawer handles, replace curtains	$358.66	Replace cat door, cupboard and drawer handles, replace curtains
Interior painting (depreciated 50%), replace front door	$2,431.10	Interior painting (depreciated 50%), replace front door
Carpet replacement (depreciated 50	$2,490.00	Carpet replacement (depreciated 50
Cleaning, rubbish removal, and dump fees	$2,330.39	Cleaning, rubbish removal, and dump fees
Electrical repairs	$462.73	Electrical repairs
Lawns and garden work	$149.50	Lawns and garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,690.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,690.38

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Alexica Investments Limited $6,690.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (3503136017) to Alexica Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative Ms Harwood attended the hearing by phone (approval given). I had separately allowed the landlord to attend by phone. Because he is in the UK, the Tribunal could not conduct a hearing with 2 parties by phone when one was overseas. Ms Harwood confirmed she had authority to represent the landlord at the hearing and she was happy to proceed.
The tenant did not attend the hearing scheduled in person at the Ashburton District Court. I am satisfied that proper notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
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 his obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of a 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 1 .
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Considerable cleaning was required, and a lot of rubbish had to be removed.

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 2 .
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) 3 .
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for 4 .
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 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 3 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 4 See section 49B(1) RTA person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty 5 .
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •The carpets and underlay were so damaged by animal soiling they had to be replaced. Ms Harwood gave evidence that the tenant had a dog and about 10 cats, and kittens. She said the degree of staining and the smell were extreme. •There were holes in walls that required repair before being repainted. •There were broken doors. •There were broken light fittings and power points and other electrical damage that made the premises unsafe. •A cat door had to be replaced as did cupboard and drawer handles. The front door lock was damaged, and an interior door handle had to be replaced. •There was damage to curtains likely caused by the cats.
Much of this damage would be considered intentional damage. For example, allowing animals to repeatedly soil carpets has been found to constitute intentional damage. The holes in walls and the damage to electrical fittings was also probably intentional damage.
The limitations on liability for careless damage do not apply in this case. Ms Harwood said the landlord was not insured for tenant damage so there had been no insurance claim.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Ms Harwood gave at the hearing.
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. For the claims for carpet replacement and interior paining I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ms Harwood said the premises were last redecorated and re-carpeted about 8 years before the tenancy started. So, allowing for the duration of the tenancy I must consider deprecation taking account of probably a 10-year age of the carpets and 10 years since redecoration.
For residential tenancy premises that means that depreciation of 50% is appropriate. I have reduced the painting and carpet replacement claims in line with that assessment. 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488729 — Property damage at 86 McMurdo Street, Tinwald, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488729 — Property damage at 86 McMurdo Street, Tinwald, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.