How much money was awarded in case 4463921?

Application Service Costs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $860.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4463921?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4463921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9398435-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4463921?

Application Service Costs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $860.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4463921?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4463921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9398435-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

96A Old Quarry Road, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4463921 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4463921?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4463921. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (Interior	$135.00	Cleaning (Interior
Rubbish Removal (Tidying Property	$1,150.00	Rubbish Removal (Tidying Property
Replacement Garage Door Remote	$175.00	Replacement Garage Door Remote
Application Service Costs	$100.00	Application Service Costs
Two Weeks’ Lost Rent	$860.00	Two Weeks’ Lost Rent
Internal Repairs (para. 10	$5,000.00	Internal Repairs (para. 10
Application Filing Fee	$20.44	Application Filing Fee

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Thomas Teiwimate Tonihi and Tiaki-Awa Marsden-Wetini to pay Delwyn Armstrong And Glen Armstrong Acting Agent For Seth Rowland Armstrong $5,840.44 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning (Interior)$135.00 Rubbish Removal (Tidying Property)$1,150.00 Replacement Garage Door Remote$175.00 Application Service Costs$100.00 Two Weeks’ Lost Rent$860.00 Internal Repairs (para. 10)$5,000.00 Application Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$7,440.44 Minus Bond$1,600.00 Tenant to pay$5,840.44

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3119835-010) to Delwyn Armstrong And Glen Armstrong Acting Agent For Seth Rowland Armstrong immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The Tenant was unavailable when called. The Landlord’s evidence proceeded unchallenged, though I have done my best to have it clearly justify its claims with reference to evidence.

The Landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Landlord’s claim initially was as follows: Description of damage or required cleaning Cost ($): Seven Internal Doors destroyed, garage remote missing, walls punched, re painting, curtain rails destroyed, cleaning, rubbish to dump, cleaning of internal garage of dog poo,35 days loss of rent while being repaired, cleaning up of yard of rubbish $10105.57 Total 13A $10105.57

I asked the Landlord to revisit its application as it required reorganisation and further and better particularisation and evidence.

The Landlord did not appear to realise it had to prove each of its damage claims on a per event basis, and then prove its loss in connection with each event.

I did not ask the Landlord to present new claims or issues for determination.

The Landlord has returned with further evidence, and further claims.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The Landlord had a contractor clean the premises interior at a cost of $135.00. I approve this amount.

The Landlord removed rubbish from the premises at a cost of $1,620.00, including labour and tip fees (approx. $400.00), the Landlord’s travel and associated costs. The latter are business costs and part and parcel of owning a residential property, and a residential property some distance away from where the Landlord lives I hasten to add. I approve the amount of $1,150.00 with reference to the photographs and the Landlord’s evidence.

The garage door remote was damaged or lost and required replacement, at a cost of $175.00 to the Landlord. I accept the Landlord’s evidence and I approve this amount.

The Tenant could not be located to serve the Landlord’s application. The Landlord engaged a process server at a cost of $201.25. The Landlord delayed in making the application, such that it brought its application outside of the two- month service period specified in s 91A. The delay occurred, in part, because the Landlord was busy appraising the premises to determine the nature and extent of the damage and the cost of repairing it. However, in the main, professional landlord do not take longer than two months to assess a property, obtain quotes and file an application. I consider the Landlord should bear half the cost of the process server. I award $100 to the Landlord.

The Landlord claims loss of rent, 35 days in total, for the period it could not tenant the premises, while it was restored and prepared for tenanting. I consider the Landlord, who resides outside of Rotorua, took longer than a professional landlord would have, having regard to the extent of the damage and the likely time required to restore the property to a habitable, tenantable state. I award two weeks’ rent: $860.00

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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’s original application, which the tenant has been given notice of, includes the following claims: a. Seven Internal Doors destroyed b. Garage remote missing c. Walls punched d. Repainting e. Curtain rails destroyed f. Cleaning g. Rubbish removal h. Cleaning of internal garage due to dog faeces i. 35 days loss of rent while being repaired j. Cleaning up of yard of rubbish

In regard to the Landlord’s additional claims (and the evidence filed in support of them), the following claims are part and parcel of the original application: a. Unclean kitchen units with cigarette butts and ash (pages 9-14): this is included under the head ‘Cleaning’. b. Filthy areas in the bathroom (pages 15-19): this also relates to ‘Cleaning’. c. Stained and roughed-up carpet (pages 20-21): in so far as it relates to ‘Cleaning,’ but not damage. d. Dogs locked in the garage with dog feces and urine (pages 22-26): in so far as it relates to ‘Cleaning of internal garage due to dog faeces’. e. Mistreatment of the property, including cigarette butts on the carpet and unclean bathroom areas (pages 31-33): in so far as it relates to ‘Cleaning’. f. Rubbish and items left all over the property, both inside and outside (pages 27-30): as it relates to ‘Rubbish removal’. g. Stained walls (pages 33A-34): as it relates to ‘Repainting’. h. Broken frame and curtain rail (page 49): as it relates to ‘Curtain rails destroyed’. i. Doors damaged beyond repair and attempted repair with wall plaster (pages 52-53): as it relates to ‘Seven Internal Doors Destroyed’

There were additional claims not included in the landlord's original claim and so I allocated a further hearing in respect of these, to understand how they related to the Landlord’s initial claim: a. Compensation for damage to the stove/oven enamel (pages 1-8) i. The Landlord says this to show the general condition of the home but there is no claim in respect of the oven. b. Damage to the corner exterior wall (pages 34-35): i. The Landlord says this relates to the claim for damaged walls. c. Damaged bedroom clothes rail (page 36) i. The Landlord had provided no evidence as to cost of the clothes rail replacement. d. Damaged hallway wall and removed doorstop knobs (pages 37-40) i. The Landlord says the damaged hallway wall is included in the total claim. ii. As regards the doorstop knobs, the Landlord confirms they were present at the commencement of the tenancy. e. Damage to the external wall near the kitchen area (page 41) i. This damage event was not discussed but the Landlord has said it asked its contractor, Bay Rebuild, to come into the home and quote to repair everything. ii. The Landlord confirms the external wall near the kitchen area was included in the total cost, and this is not treated as a separate cost item. f. Damage to bedroom walls, including stripping wallpaper and the need for wallpapering and painting (pages 42-44) i. The Landlord says the damage to bedroom walls is included in the total claim for ‘walls punched’ and general wall damage. g. Damage to the lounge/dining area wall (pages 45-47) i. The Landlord says the damaged lounge/dining area wall is included in the total claim for ‘walls punched’ and general wall damage. h. Ceiling damage (page 48) i. The Landlord says the damaged hallways wall is included in the total claim for ‘walls punched’ and general wall damage, even though, strictly speaking, ceilings are not walls. i. Veneer smashed on the toilet room door (page 54) i. This is a new claim but is to be include in the overall cost of repair as recorded in the Bay Rebuild Invoice. j. Bathroom door lock destroyed (pages 55-56) i. This is also new claim but is to be include in the overall cost of repair as recorded in the Bay Rebuild Invoice. k. Damaged double wardrobe doors and broken/damaged single wardrobe door (pages 50-51): i. The Bay Rebuild Invoice is the single source from which all the Landlord’s claims derive. If there was damage at the premises, Bay Rebuilt fixed it all.

In summary, the Landlord submitted as follows: a. Doors: Seven doors in the property were severely shredded during the tenancy. Bay Rebuild was employed to install new doors supplied by Carters. Carters provided an invoice for the cost of the doors, and Bay Rebuild installed them. b. Corner Wall: The corner wall in the open living area, between the kitchen and dining room, had a hole that needed to be cut out, re-gibbed, replastered, and repainted. c. Hallway: Various angles in the hallway showed evidence of deliberate damage. d. Kitchen Area: The kitchen walls had damage. e. Bedroom Walls: The walls in the bedrooms had damage. f. Balustrade Deck: The deck balustrades were kicked off at the deck and some had been reattached but were loose at the bottom. g. Dining Area: The ceiling in the dining area needed repairs. h. Broken Window Frames: Window frames were broken and required fixing. i. Broken Curtain Rails: Curtain rails were also broken and needed replacement. j. Broken Lock in Bathroom Door: The lock in the bathroom door was broken and needed to be fixed. k. Intervention by Neighbour: The neighbour had to intervene on more than one occasion due to concerns about the property and the need to calm down.

I have established, the individual cost of repair of each damage event would be less than the Landlord’s insurance excess. I need not consider whether the damage is careless or reckless, because it makes no difference to the Landlord’s recovery under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I consider much of the damage is more than fair wear and tear and it has occurred during the tenancy.

The Tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I have considered each of the individual damage events. It would be an arbitrary exercise for me to try to put a price on the individual repairs of these given I am not a builder.

Mr Armstrong insisted builders would never provide an individual per-event costing.

Glen Armstrong is a builder. He suggests most builders would not provide an itemised breakdown for their work, because this is not something that he personally does.

With respect to Mr Armstrong, comments like this tend to mislead and do little to promote confidence in the trades.

To Mr Armstrong’s mind, however dense it may be, a ceiling is a wall, but builders, painters and decorators all know the difference.

It may be convenient to lump everything together, but it could fairer for the tenant, who is picking up the bill.

I award the Landlord’s costs as set at the total Bay Rebuild invoice total, applying a 5% deduction from the invoice total, which represents the margin of error and uncertainty created by not providing an individual costing. I award $5,000.00.

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.

Because Delwyn Armstrong And Glen Armstrong Acting Agent For Seth Rowland Armstrong has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Addendum:

Paragraph 18 amended: Mr Armstrong seemed to overlook the potential difference in density between ceilings and walls, a crucial distinction for remediation when the surface is damaged. However, builders, painters, and decorators are acutely aware of this difference.

GIB® explicitly distinguishes between plasterboard thicknesses recommended for walls and ceilings. The reason behind this differentiation is not arbitrary. The thicker 13mm plasterboard is less susceptible to sagging when used in ceiling applications, a concern not as pronounced for vertical wall installations. The distinction between plasterboard for walls and ceilings directly affects both material choice and work approach to repairs and painting (e.g. primer absorption, number of paint coats required, and drying time). Adhering to manufacturer recommendations ensures longevity and optimal performance of the installed plasterboard.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4463921. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (Interior	$135.00	Cleaning (Interior
Rubbish Removal (Tidying Property	$1,150.00	Rubbish Removal (Tidying Property
Replacement Garage Door Remote	$175.00	Replacement Garage Door Remote
Application Service Costs	$100.00	Application Service Costs
Two Weeks’ Lost Rent	$860.00	Two Weeks’ Lost Rent
Internal Repairs (para. 10	$5,000.00	Internal Repairs (para. 10
Application Filing Fee	$20.44	Application Filing Fee