What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4412471?

The tribunal order states: Jaime Louise Haddon must pay Yun (Karen) He $6,144.84 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4412471?

Cleaning: $524.40 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Interior Repaint: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rents: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $770.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Plastering: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4412471?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4412471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9988913-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4412471?

The tribunal order states: Jaime Louise Haddon must pay Yun (Karen) He $6,144.84 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4412471?

Cleaning: $524.40 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Interior Repaint: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rents: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $770.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Plastering: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4412471?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4412471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9988913-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 20 Armada Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4412471 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4412471 — net $6,144.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$630.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$524.40	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$770.00	Rubbish removal
Graffiti damage	$800.00	Graffiti damage
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Loss of rents	$1,300.00	Loss of rents
Backboard repair	$400.00	Backboard repair
Internal repairs	$1,100.00	Internal repairs
Interior repaint	$1,000.00	Interior repaint
Wall plastering	$900.00	Wall plastering
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,144.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,144.84

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

In an Order issued following a hearing on 31 July 2023 the Adjudicator noted: “After the hearing had been completed, I received an email from Auckland metro tenancy advising that the tenant rang them at 1.15pm today, 31 July 2023 to say she had covid and would not be attending. The tenant should have advised Auckland metro tenancy much earlier than three quarters of an hour before the hearing. Reluctantly I am adjourning this part heard. If I issued an order against the tenant, I would only receive a rehearing application, on the grounds of ill health. The tenant should provide proof of her covid results or medical evidence for the next hearing.”

No such proof has been provided by the tenant. Understandably the landlord is frustrated at the delay and by having to again prove her claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 12 May 2022. The tenant had given notice of termination ending earlier but did not return possession of the premises to the landlord until that date. I find that the tenant is liable for rent until 12 May 2022. The landlord has 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.

Photographs provided by the landlord show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved by invoices paid by the landlord and provided in evidence.

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. The landlord says that the premises are insured but not under a landlords’ cover for which a claim for these losses would be available.

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. See section 49B(1) RTA. I am satisfied that the damage for which compensation is claimed is more likely than not to have been intentionally caused.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -graffiti was painted on the carport walls -carpet was cut -much of the interior joinery was damaged -many walls had holes that needed to be filled and plastered -interior walls were badly marked and required repainting. -barge boards were damaged and required replacing.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts paid by the landlord to remediate the damage are proved by invoices paid by the landlord.

After the tenancy had ended, as well as repairing the above damage, the landlord undertook extensive renovations that included replacement of flooring, replacement of bathrooms and repainting the exterior of the house.

The landlord is only entitled to be compensated for losses caused by the tenant’s breach of her obligations and allowance must be made for depreciation when awarding compensation for replacement of depreciable items.

The costs incurred by the landlord for repairing the bargeboards, interior joinery and interior surfaces are all fully recoverable as repair items to which depreciation should not be applied.

The landlord’s evidence is that the carport would not have been painted but for the need to cover over the graffiti. I have no reason not to accept that evidence and find that the cost is fully recoverable without allowance for improvement value.

The carpet was second hand (approximately 3 years old) when laid before the start of the tenancy so by the end of the tenancy was at least 9 years old and at the end of its useful life as assessed in terms of IRD depreciation tables. Some allowance is made for the residual value it would have had but for the intentional damage caused by the tenant.

The tenant’s evidence, which is corroborated by the photographs shown at the hearing, is that the interior walls of the premises were newly painted immediately before the start of the tenancy. The paintwork was accordingly 6 years old at the end of the tenancy which is close to the end of its depreciable life and there would be a considerable improvement benefit to the landlord if the whole of the cost were awarded.

Again, allowance is made for a residual value.

The landlord has claimed 4 weeks rent as compensation for loss of rents while repair work was carried out. That loss is an actual and foreseeable loss arising from the tenant’s breaches. However, the period the premises were not relet was considerably longer than that, due to the other improvement work that the landlord carried out. The tenant had no control over what work was carried out and when.

I assess 2 weeks as a reasonable allowance for the period the premises could not be carried out while cleaning and repair of tenant’s damage was carried out.

Because Yun (Karen) He has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4412471 — net $6,144.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$630.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$524.40	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$770.00	Rubbish removal
Graffiti damage	$800.00	Graffiti damage
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Loss of rents	$1,300.00	Loss of rents
Backboard repair	$400.00	Backboard repair
Internal repairs	$1,100.00	Internal repairs
Interior repaint	$1,000.00	Interior repaint
Wall plastering	$900.00	Wall plastering
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,144.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,144.84

Order

Jaime Louise Haddon must pay Yun (Karen) He $6,144.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5059188-004) to Yun (Karen) He immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
In an Order issued following a hearing on 31 July 2023 the Adjudicator noted: “After the hearing had been completed, I received an email from Auckland metro tenancy advising that the tenant rang them at 1.15pm today, 31 July 2023 to say she had covid and would not be attending. The tenant should have advised Auckland metro tenancy much earlier than three quarters of an hour before the hearing. Reluctantly I am adjourning this part heard. If I issued an order against the tenant, I would only receive a rehearing application, on the grounds of ill health. The tenant should provide proof of her covid results or medical evidence for the next hearing.”
No such proof has been provided by the tenant. Understandably the landlord is frustrated at the delay and by having to again prove her claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 12 May 2022. The tenant had given notice of termination ending earlier but did not return possession of the premises to the landlord until that date. I find that the tenant is liable for rent until 12 May 2022. The landlord has 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.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices paid by the landlord and provided in evidence.

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. The landlord says that the premises are insured but not under a landlords’ cover for which a claim for these losses would be available.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA. I am satisfied that the damage for which compensation is claimed is more likely than not to have been intentionally caused.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: -graffiti was painted on the carport walls -carpet was cut -much of the interior joinery was damaged -many walls had holes that needed to be filled and plastered -interior walls were badly marked and required repainting. -barge boards were damaged and required replacing.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts paid by the landlord to remediate the damage are proved by invoices paid by the landlord.
After the tenancy had ended, as well as repairing the above damage, the landlord undertook extensive renovations that included replacement of flooring, replacement of bathrooms and repainting the exterior of the house.
The landlord is only entitled to be compensated for losses caused by the tenant’s breach of her obligations and allowance must be made for depreciation when awarding compensation for replacement of depreciable items.
The costs incurred by the landlord for repairing the bargeboards, interior joinery and interior surfaces are all fully recoverable as repair items to which depreciation should not be applied.
The landlord’s evidence is that the carport would not have been painted but for the need to cover over the graffiti. I have no reason not to accept that evidence and find that the cost is fully recoverable without allowance for improvement value.
The carpet was second hand (approximately 3 years old) when laid before the start of the tenancy so by the end of the tenancy was at least 9 years old and at the end of its useful life as assessed in terms of IRD depreciation tables. Some allowance is made for the residual value it would have had but for the intentional damage caused by the tenant.
The tenant’s evidence, which is corroborated by the photographs shown at the hearing, is that the interior walls of the premises were newly painted immediately before the start of the tenancy. The paintwork was accordingly 6 years old at the end of the tenancy which is close to the end of its depreciable life and there would be a considerable improvement benefit to the landlord if the whole of the cost were awarded.
Again, allowance is made for a residual value.
The landlord has claimed 4 weeks rent as compensation for loss of rents while repair work was carried out. That loss is an actual and foreseeable loss arising from the tenant’s breaches. However, the period the premises were not relet was considerably longer than that, due to the other improvement work that the landlord carried out. The tenant had no control over what work was carried out and when.
I assess 2 weeks as a reasonable allowance for the period the premises could not be carried out while cleaning and repair of tenant’s damage was carried out.
Because Yun (Karen) He has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4412471 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Armada Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4412471 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 20 Armada Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions