What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4521011?

The tribunal order states: Ashleigh Katrina Shelford must pay Tony David & Karen Ann Watson trading as

How much money was awarded in case 4521011?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4521011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4521011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9670554-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4521011?

The tribunal order states: Ashleigh Katrina Shelford must pay Tony David & Karen Ann Watson trading as

How much money was awarded in case 4521011?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4521011?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4521011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9670554-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Diaz Drive, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4521011 — Cleanliness

Order

Ashleigh Katrina Shelford must pay Tony David & Karen Ann Watson trading as Watmor Partnership $3,046.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 14 June 2023 regarding service and notice of the hearing was issued by email to the tenant and substituted service has since been carried out. I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice on the tenant and direct that the notice of hearing be treated as served on the tenant in accordance with clause 91B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 May 2022. The tenant left three weeks earlier than the expiry of the termination notice though the landlord has not claimed the rent for that period as the landlord moved in straight away to commence refurbishments of the property.
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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. 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 tenant did not clean the heat pump.
The landlord had to replace light fittings, a shower curtain, light bulbs, door handles and missing smoke alarms.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken glass in one window and one door; b. Broken clothesline; c. Net curtains damaged in bedroom by dogs; d. Dog scratchings on laundry, back door and two bedroom door frames; e. Dog scratchings on back door trim; f. Dog scratchings on laundry door; g. Hole in laundry door; h. Hole in bath; i. Large foundation stain on vanity j. Significant carpet damage throughout the premises; k. Several broken pieces of exterior fibre light; and l. Broken television cable.
The landlord provided supporting photographs and invoices in relation to each item claimed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. Based on the photographs provided, I accept that the carpet, vanity and bath required replacement. But that is not to say that the tenants should be liable for the full replacement costs. The landlord acknowledged this and stated that they had discussed with the tenant her paying 50% of the replacement carpet cost.
I note that the estimated useful life of carpet, vanities, baths and benchtops in a residential tenancy is 10 years. The landlord’s evidence was that 50% of the carpet had likely fully depreciated, and the other 50% was likely six years old. Based on that the tenant’s share of the replacement cost of the carpets would be $878.10 and that is what I have awarded.
The age of the vanity and bath were not noted during the hearing, but they do appear to be of an older style and likely nearing the end of their useful life. However, I consider that it is reasonable that some level of compensation be paid, which I set at $500.00.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 22 November 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4521011 — Cleanliness at 28 Diaz Drive, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

Tenancy Tribunal case 4521011 — Cleanliness at 28 Diaz Drive, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

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?

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?