What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4404080?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Elizabeth Gasking must pay Pembroke Ponga Limited $5,850.05

How much money was awarded in case 4404080?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,964.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,560.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Scratched Walls--Plaster & Paint: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4404080?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4404080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9586269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4404080?

The tribunal order states: Jessica Elizabeth Gasking must pay Pembroke Ponga Limited $5,850.05

How much money was awarded in case 4404080?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,964.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,560.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Scratched Walls--Plaster & Paint: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4404080?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4404080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9586269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4404080 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

21 Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4404080 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4404080 — net $5,850.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.9.2022	$2,560.00		Rent arrears to 17.9.2022
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,265.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Skip hire	$250.00		Skip hire
Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint	$500.00		Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint
Repairs: front door	$500.00		Repairs: front door
Repairs: bathroom door	$150.00		Repairs: bathroom door
Replacement bathroom cabinetry and jet covers	$1,964.61		Replacement bathroom cabinetry and jet covers
Replacement bathroom light fittings and tap	$50.00		Replacement bathroom light fittings and tap
Loss of rent	$470.00		Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refund received		$1,880.00	Bond refund received
Total award	$7,730.05	$1,880.00
Net award	$5,850.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,850.05

Claims and awards for application 4404080 — net $5,850.05 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 17.9.2022

Amount: $2,560.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 17.9.2022

Cleaning and rubbish removal

Amount: $1,265.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal

Skip hire

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Skip hire

Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint

Repairs: front door

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: front door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Jessica Elizabeth Gasking must pay Pembroke Ponga Limited $5,850.05 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Martin and Mr Shea. There was no appearance by the tenant, Ms Gasking. Adjournment requests
This hearing proceeded as a rehearing following the District Court decision of Judge KD Kelly dated 18 September 2023 which granted Ms Gaskin’s appeal and ordered this Tribunal to rehear the landlord’s claim. Judge Kelly also directed as follows: “[66] The parties are to file all evidence to the Tribunal no later than 10 working days from the date of this decision addressed to wgtntt@justice.govt.nz. The parties are also required to bring three copies of the evidence to the hearing before the Tribunal. Failure to do so will mean that the evidence may not be considered by the Tribunal.”
Leading up to the hearing, Ms Gasking contacted the Tribunal several times to request an adjournment of today’s hearing citing various grounds including: a. She has only recently come across relevant evidence that she requires some time to catalogue; b. She wishes to have legal representation; c. She wishes to pursue a cross claim; d. She hasn’t received copies of the landlord’s evidence.
I declined all of the tenant’s requests for an adjournment as set out in a minute sent to the parties on 26 October 2023 and in subsequent email replies from the Tribunal to Ms Gasking. She was also advised to attend the hearing and address her concerns with me directly. The tenant again contacted the Tribunal at 4.53pm yesterday, 30 October 2023, asking where the courtroom was as she wished to be on time for the hearing. The Tribunal replied by email at 7.40am today, 31 October 2023, advising her of the hearing room location and hearing start time.
At 9.15am today, Ms Gasking sent a further email to the Tribunal advising that she would not attend and asked the Tribunal to consider the contents of her email for the hearing. I have done so and declined to delay the hearing further. Therefore, the landlords claims were reheard. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 September 2022. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos taken by the landlord and produced in evidence. I accept that the landlord was required to engage cleaners to clean the premises and remove rubbish. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the landlord had to hire a skip bin to take away builder’s rubbish and carpet which had to be uplifted and replaced because of a smell.
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.
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 as shown in photos taken at the end of the tenancy and produced in evidence: Scratches and gouges in walls; damage to the front door and to the bathroom door and frame. The landlord also produced invoices for the repair costs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I consider was likely intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim for severe water damage to the bathroom cabinetry is significant and involved replacing the mirror wall cabinet; the vanity; the missing bath jet covers; the bathroom door (noted above), the light fittings and the tap. The landlord believes that the damage was likely caused by the tenant not using the shower curtain; through floods or overflows of water and/or not using the extractor fan and opening the window after bathing/showering. I accept based on the photos that the tenant likely allowed water and condensation to accumulate causing the damage. This would also be intentional damage under the Guo v Korck definition.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In relation to the light fitting and the bathroom tap, I am satisfied on the landlord’s evidence that that they are more then 10 years old and should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, I accept that the fittings should have lasted a bit longer and it is fair to award 10-15% of the replacement costs for the unintended early replacement of the items. The cost of the replacement lights, the tap and the labour was approximately $350 (based on the invoices). I award $50 as a contribution.
The landlord mentioned other claims during the hearing for which they sought compensation regarding replacement of carpet and replacement of the bathroom window. However, these claims were not articulated in the original application and, therefore, I have not considered them.

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

The landlord argues that due to the damage caused during the tenancy, it took several weeks to complete repairs after the tenancy ended on 17 September 2023. They could not advertise the premises for rent until late November 2023 and a new tenancy did not start until 10 December 2023. I am not entirely persuaded that the premises could not have been advertised sooner, notwithstanding that there was still some remedial work to finish. The landlord seeks three weeks’ rent as compensation for the time that the premises could not be let while repairs and remedial work was completed.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote, Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage (particularly in the bathroom) occurred requiring significant repair work. Conversely, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant, especially after a two-year tenancy, as in this case.
After considering all the circumstances, including the damage, the time taken to repair and the length of the tenancy, I am satisfied that compensation of one weeks’ rent is justified. Therefore, I award $470.
The bond has already been refunded to the landlord and has been taken into account in the calculation of the total award.
As the landlord has mostly succeeded with their claims, the tenant is to reimburse the filing fee on the landlord’s application.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4404080 — net $5,850.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17.9.2022	$2,560.00		Rent arrears to 17.9.2022
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,265.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Skip hire	$250.00		Skip hire
Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint	$500.00		Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint
Repairs: front door	$500.00		Repairs: front door
Repairs: bathroom door	$150.00		Repairs: bathroom door
Replacement bathroom cabinetry and jet covers	$1,964.61		Replacement bathroom cabinetry and jet covers
Replacement bathroom light fittings and tap	$50.00		Replacement bathroom light fittings and tap
Loss of rent	$470.00		Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refund received		$1,880.00	Bond refund received
Total award	$7,730.05	$1,880.00
Net award	$5,850.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,850.05

Claims and awards for application 4404080 — net $5,850.05 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 17.9.2022

Amount: $2,560.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 17.9.2022

Cleaning and rubbish removal

Amount: $1,265.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and rubbish removal

Skip hire

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Skip hire

Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: scratched walls--plaster & paint

Repairs: front door

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: front door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Jessica Elizabeth Gasking must pay Pembroke Ponga Limited $5,850.05 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Martin and Mr Shea. There was no appearance by the tenant, Ms Gasking. Adjournment requests
This hearing proceeded as a rehearing following the District Court decision of Judge KD Kelly dated 18 September 2023 which granted Ms Gaskin’s appeal and ordered this Tribunal to rehear the landlord’s claim. Judge Kelly also directed as follows: “[66] The parties are to file all evidence to the Tribunal no later than 10 working days from the date of this decision addressed to wgtntt@justice.govt.nz. The parties are also required to bring three copies of the evidence to the hearing before the Tribunal. Failure to do so will mean that the evidence may not be considered by the Tribunal.”
Leading up to the hearing, Ms Gasking contacted the Tribunal several times to request an adjournment of today’s hearing citing various grounds including: a. She has only recently come across relevant evidence that she requires some time to catalogue; b. She wishes to have legal representation; c. She wishes to pursue a cross claim; d. She hasn’t received copies of the landlord’s evidence.
I declined all of the tenant’s requests for an adjournment as set out in a minute sent to the parties on 26 October 2023 and in subsequent email replies from the Tribunal to Ms Gasking. She was also advised to attend the hearing and address her concerns with me directly. The tenant again contacted the Tribunal at 4.53pm yesterday, 30 October 2023, asking where the courtroom was as she wished to be on time for the hearing. The Tribunal replied by email at 7.40am today, 31 October 2023, advising her of the hearing room location and hearing start time.
At 9.15am today, Ms Gasking sent a further email to the Tribunal advising that she would not attend and asked the Tribunal to consider the contents of her email for the hearing. I have done so and declined to delay the hearing further. Therefore, the landlords claims were reheard. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 September 2022. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos taken by the landlord and produced in evidence. I accept that the landlord was required to engage cleaners to clean the premises and remove rubbish. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the landlord had to hire a skip bin to take away builder’s rubbish and carpet which had to be uplifted and replaced because of a smell.
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.
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 as shown in photos taken at the end of the tenancy and produced in evidence: Scratches and gouges in walls; damage to the front door and to the bathroom door and frame. The landlord also produced invoices for the repair costs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I consider was likely intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim for severe water damage to the bathroom cabinetry is significant and involved replacing the mirror wall cabinet; the vanity; the missing bath jet covers; the bathroom door (noted above), the light fittings and the tap. The landlord believes that the damage was likely caused by the tenant not using the shower curtain; through floods or overflows of water and/or not using the extractor fan and opening the window after bathing/showering. I accept based on the photos that the tenant likely allowed water and condensation to accumulate causing the damage. This would also be intentional damage under the Guo v Korck definition.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In relation to the light fitting and the bathroom tap, I am satisfied on the landlord’s evidence that that they are more then 10 years old and should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, I accept that the fittings should have lasted a bit longer and it is fair to award 10-15% of the replacement costs for the unintended early replacement of the items. The cost of the replacement lights, the tap and the labour was approximately $350 (based on the invoices). I award $50 as a contribution.
The landlord mentioned other claims during the hearing for which they sought compensation regarding replacement of carpet and replacement of the bathroom window. However, these claims were not articulated in the original application and, therefore, I have not considered them.

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

The landlord argues that due to the damage caused during the tenancy, it took several weeks to complete repairs after the tenancy ended on 17 September 2023. They could not advertise the premises for rent until late November 2023 and a new tenancy did not start until 10 December 2023. I am not entirely persuaded that the premises could not have been advertised sooner, notwithstanding that there was still some remedial work to finish. The landlord seeks three weeks’ rent as compensation for the time that the premises could not be let while repairs and remedial work was completed.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote, Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage (particularly in the bathroom) occurred requiring significant repair work. Conversely, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant, especially after a two-year tenancy, as in this case.
After considering all the circumstances, including the damage, the time taken to repair and the length of the tenancy, I am satisfied that compensation of one weeks’ rent is justified. Therefore, I award $470.
The bond has already been refunded to the landlord and has been taken into account in the calculation of the total award.
As the landlord has mostly succeeded with their claims, the tenant is to reimburse the filing fee on the landlord’s application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4404080 — Property damage at 21 Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4404080 — Property damage at 21 Pembroke Road, Northland, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the landlord entitled to loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions