What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4550514?

The tribunal order states: Albertus Francois Hansen and Dominique Mari Helene Hansen must pay Upper

How much money was awarded in case 4550514?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Paint And Materials: $311.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Flexi Bin (Consent: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cutlery Insert (Consent: $15.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550514?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9926090-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4550514?

The tribunal order states: Albertus Francois Hansen and Dominique Mari Helene Hansen must pay Upper

How much money was awarded in case 4550514?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Paint And Materials: $311.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Flexi Bin (Consent: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cutlery Insert (Consent: $15.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550514?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9926090-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Maylee Crescent, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4550514 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550514 — net $2,747.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remove flexi bin (consent	$200.00	Remove flexi bin (consent
Replace cutlery insert (consent	$15.40	Replace cutlery insert (consent
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,000.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Paint and materials	$311.51	Paint and materials
Compensation for damage to garage door	$850.00	Compensation for damage to garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,747.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,747.35

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Feng and Ms Cheng represented the landlord. Mrs Hansen appeared for the tenants. For convenience, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.

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

I first began hearing the application on 13 October 2023. I adjourned the hearing, with directions, to allow for file disclosure on the tenant.

As directed, the tenant filed a statement of defence to the landlord’s claims. I have carefully considered that together with the evidence given by the parties at the hearing, and the documentary evidence.

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 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 a flexi bin.

Mrs Hansen said she believed the amount claimed for cleaning should be reduced because the premises required some cleaning at the start of the tenancy.

From the evidence both parties provided, including photos, I find the claim for cleaning proved. The amount of the claim is relatively modest. Mr Feng confirmed that the cleaning was just to bring the premises to a reasonable state; it was not a deep or thorough clean.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy. Carpets were stained and the owner replaced them. There were numerous marks on walls. The owner purchased paint to paint the walls but did not charge for labour. The garage door was damaged and was replaced.

Mrs Hansen suggested that the damage to the walls was fair wear and tear. From my assessment of the evidence the damage to the walls went beyond what would objectively be considered fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Mrs Hansen accepted that the carpets were stained during the tenancy and were not cleaned before the tenant vacated.

I have considered betterment and depreciation. The carpet was about 10 years old. The owner was selling the premises and that would have been a factor in deciding to re-carpet the premises. The photos produced in evidence do not support a case for re-carpeting. Had the premises remained rental premises, I think it likely that the carpet would just have been cleaned.

I award the landlord compensation of $1,000.00 for damage to the carpet.

The tenant damaged the garage door and advised the landlord of the damage and appeared to accept liability for the cost of the repair.

The owner of the premises replaced the door, even though it still operated. The decision to replace it was probably influenced by the decision to sell the premises.

The door was the same age as the house, about 13 years old.

I award the landlord compensation of $850.00 for the damage to the garage door which reflects the age of the door and the fact that the door was still operable even though damaged.

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for removing a flexi bin and for replacing a cutlery drawer insert. I have allowed those claims by consent.

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

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought name suppression. However, as the tenant’s defence to the application is mostly unsuccessful, I make no name suppression order – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550514 — net $2,747.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remove flexi bin (consent	$200.00	Remove flexi bin (consent
Replace cutlery insert (consent	$15.40	Replace cutlery insert (consent
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,000.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Paint and materials	$311.51	Paint and materials
Compensation for damage to garage door	$850.00	Compensation for damage to garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,747.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,747.35

Order

Albertus Francois Hansen and Dominique Mari Helene Hansen must pay Upper House Property Management Limited $2,747.35 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for the replacement cost of an exterior light bulb is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Feng and Ms Cheng represented the landlord. Mrs Hansen appeared for the tenants. For convenience, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I first began hearing the application on 13 October 2023. I adjourned the hearing, with directions, to allow for file disclosure on the tenant.
As directed, the tenant filed a statement of defence to the landlord’s claims. I have carefully considered that together with the evidence given by the parties at the hearing, and the documentary evidence.

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 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 a flexi bin.
Mrs Hansen said she believed the amount claimed for cleaning should be reduced because the premises required some cleaning at the start of the tenancy.
From the evidence both parties provided, including photos, I find the claim for cleaning proved. The amount of the claim is relatively modest. Mr Feng confirmed that the cleaning was just to bring the premises to a reasonable state; it was not a deep or thorough clean.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. Carpets were stained and the owner replaced them. There were numerous marks on walls. The owner purchased paint to paint the walls but did not charge for labour. The garage door was damaged and was replaced.
Mrs Hansen suggested that the damage to the walls was fair wear and tear. From my assessment of the evidence the damage to the walls went beyond what would objectively be considered fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Mrs Hansen accepted that the carpets were stained during the tenancy and were not cleaned before the tenant vacated.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The carpet was about 10 years old. The owner was selling the premises and that would have been a factor in deciding to re-carpet the premises. The photos produced in evidence do not support a case for re-carpeting. Had the premises remained rental premises, I think it likely that the carpet would just have been cleaned.
I award the landlord compensation of $1,000.00 for damage to the carpet.
The tenant damaged the garage door and advised the landlord of the damage and appeared to accept liability for the cost of the repair.
The owner of the premises replaced the door, even though it still operated. The decision to replace it was probably influenced by the decision to sell the premises.
The door was the same age as the house, about 13 years old.
I award the landlord compensation of $850.00 for the damage to the garage door which reflects the age of the door and the fact that the door was still operable even though damaged.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for removing a flexi bin and for replacing a cutlery drawer insert. I have allowed those claims by consent.
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order. The tenant sought name suppression. However, as the tenant’s defence to the application is mostly unsuccessful, I make no name suppression order – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550514 — Property damage at 2 Maylee Crescent, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550514 — Property damage at 2 Maylee Crescent, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions