What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4553750?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4553750?

Cleaning: $155.83 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,276.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $497.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,020.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Paper: $2,950.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Door Handle: $57.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4553750?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4553750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9634348-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4553750?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4553750?

Cleaning: $155.83 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,276.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $497.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,020.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Paper: $2,950.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Door Handle: $57.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4553750?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4553750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9634348-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

93 Kitchener Street, Gore, Gore 9710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4553750 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

93 Kitchener Street, Gore, Gore 9710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4553750 — 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 4553750 — net $5,298.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,020.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$155.83	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$497.74	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,276.75	Cleaning
Toilet door handle	$57.60	Toilet door handle
Repairs: Wall paper	$2,950.00	Repairs: Wall paper
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,298.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,298.36

Claims and awards for application 4553750 — net $5,298.36 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,020.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $155.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $497.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $1,276.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Toilet door handle

Amount: $57.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Toilet door handle

Repairs: Wall paper

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kenneth James Cartwright must pay Pride Property Management Limited Trading As Remax Pride As Agent For Kate And Joseph Stainton-Herbert $5,298.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6308631-012) to Pride Property Management Limited Trading As Remax Pride As Agent For Kate And Joseph Stainton-Herbert immediately.

Reasons

This matter was originally heard and determined on the 6 July 2023. An order was made. The tenant applied for a rehearing on the 12 July 2023 and was granted on the basis that he was travelling here and running late and the hearing commenced in his absence.
The rehearing application was granted. The matter set down again on 28 August. However, the tenant sought an adjournment as he claimed he had a car collision and could not drive to the hearing. He was advised that he could be connected by phone, however he sought an in-person hearing. The matter needed to be adjourned again.
The tenant attended the Gore Court on 10 October on the understanding the matter was proceeding that day, it was set down for today and he was advised of this. He sought to be connected by telephone for this hearing at this time stating he could not afford to travel to Invercargill.
At today’s hearing the tenant failed to answer the two phone numbers that had been provided for him. Both were disconnected. He also did not respond to the email seeking to confirm his number
On this basis the terms of the original order stands. However, to be clear, this order replaces the order dated 6 July 2023. The 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 19 April 2023. 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. 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. There was a significant amount of cleaning that was required, and removal of belongings as shown in the photos submitted at the hearing.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
There was damage done to the wallpaper and walls in a number of the rooms. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The pre inspection photos submitted confirm that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is not covered by insurance given the amount of excess that is required for each individual claim.
The property had been renovated not long before the tenant moved in.
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.
Because Pride Property Management Limited Trading As Remax Pride As Agent For Kate And Joseph Stainton-Herbert has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 4553750 — net $5,298.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,020.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$155.83	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$497.74	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,276.75	Cleaning
Toilet door handle	$57.60	Toilet door handle
Repairs: Wall paper	$2,950.00	Repairs: Wall paper
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,298.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,298.36

Claims and awards for application 4553750 — net $5,298.36 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,020.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $155.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $497.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $1,276.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Toilet door handle

Amount: $57.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Toilet door handle

Repairs: Wall paper

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kenneth James Cartwright must pay Pride Property Management Limited Trading As Remax Pride As Agent For Kate And Joseph Stainton-Herbert $5,298.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6308631-012) to Pride Property Management Limited Trading As Remax Pride As Agent For Kate And Joseph Stainton-Herbert immediately.

Reasons

This matter was originally heard and determined on the 6 July 2023. An order was made. The tenant applied for a rehearing on the 12 July 2023 and was granted on the basis that he was travelling here and running late and the hearing commenced in his absence.
The rehearing application was granted. The matter set down again on 28 August. However, the tenant sought an adjournment as he claimed he had a car collision and could not drive to the hearing. He was advised that he could be connected by phone, however he sought an in-person hearing. The matter needed to be adjourned again.
The tenant attended the Gore Court on 10 October on the understanding the matter was proceeding that day, it was set down for today and he was advised of this. He sought to be connected by telephone for this hearing at this time stating he could not afford to travel to Invercargill.
At today’s hearing the tenant failed to answer the two phone numbers that had been provided for him. Both were disconnected. He also did not respond to the email seeking to confirm his number
On this basis the terms of the original order stands. However, to be clear, this order replaces the order dated 6 July 2023. The 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 19 April 2023. 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. 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. There was a significant amount of cleaning that was required, and removal of belongings as shown in the photos submitted at the hearing.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
There was damage done to the wallpaper and walls in a number of the rooms. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The pre inspection photos submitted confirm that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is not covered by insurance given the amount of excess that is required for each individual claim.
The property had been renovated not long before the tenant moved in.
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.
Because Pride Property Management Limited Trading As Remax Pride As Agent For Kate And Joseph Stainton-Herbert has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4553750 — Property damage at 93 Kitchener Street, Gore, Gore 9710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4553750 — Property damage at 93 Kitchener Street, Gore, Gore 9710

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions