What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4558870?

The tribunal order states: Stephanie Williams must pay Alexica Investments Limited $1,483.24

How much money was awarded in case 4558870?

Cleaning: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Fees: $57.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558870?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9602733-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4558870?

The tribunal order states: Stephanie Williams must pay Alexica Investments Limited $1,483.24

How much money was awarded in case 4558870?

Cleaning: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Fees: $57.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558870?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9602733-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

87 Archibald Street, Tinwald, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4558870 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4558870 — net $1,483.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for repairs to walls etc - painting, materials, landlord labour (depreciated	$1,000.00	Compensation for repairs to walls etc - painting, materials, landlord labour (depreciated
Dump fees	$57.80	Dump fees
Cleaning	$475.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and tidying exterior of premises including landlord labour	$1,250.00	Rubbish removal and tidying exterior of premises including landlord labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,483.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,483.24

Order

Stephanie Williams must pay Alexica Investments Limited $1,483.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 (5113303-009) to Alexica Investments Limited immediately.
The application for the insurance excess for damage following a flood and for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Allan for the landlord company attended by phone from the UK. His property manager Ms Harwood attended in person.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, loss of rent compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I heard evidence from both parties and from Ms Harwood. I have also considered the documentary evidence provided mostly by the landlord but also by the tenant.

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 tenancy ended on 10 February 2023 although the tenant vacated the premises before then. The landlord charged rent to 8 February 2023. There is no claim for rent arrears.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord had to arrange for the premises to be cleaned and for the rubbish to be removed and dumped.
The tenant alleges that she could not enter the premises following a flooding event on 1 February 2023. Before then, she alleges that she gave her only key to the premises to Ms Harwood and after that had no key.
The evidence does not establish that the tenant was prevented from entering the premises before the tenancy ended, other than for 2-3 days after the flood when the carpets were cleaned.
The landlord’s photos establish that the tenant did not comply with her statutory responsibilities upon vacating the tenancy.
Although the tenant claims that the landlord allowed her further time to remove rubbish, but then removed the rubbish before she had a chance to, that evidence is disputed by the landlord.
I find the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal and dump fees proved by the evidence produced by the landlord – photos, invoices, and the oral evidence Mr Allan and Ms Harwood gave.

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. Walls throughout the premises were damaged and marked and had to be plastered and repainted. The landlord has limited the claim for repairs only to the part of the contractor’s invoice that relates to the damaged walls and ceiling, required materials, and the landlord’s labour to assist with the repairs.
The damage for which compensation is awarded is for damage that is more than fair wear and tear, and for which the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant accepted liability for some of the damage.
I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord to take into account depreciation. The tenancy lasted three and a half years and allowance must be made for both depreciation and fair wear and tear over that time.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess on the flood damage claim ($550.00) and for loss of rent compensation ($4,070.00).
Ms Harwood acknowledged that she did not know how the damage occurred. She said she did not believe that the tenant caused the flooding event.
The tenant gave evidence that Ms Harwood asked her for the key to the premises and it was agreed that a key would be left. Ms Harwood said the agreement reached was that the tenant would get a key cut and leave a key for her and retain the other.
The tenant said she left the only key for Ms Harwood after which she could not lock the premises.
Given that the tenant still had some of her goods at the premises after 7 January 2023 when she left the key for Ms Harwood, I was not convinced by the tenant’s evidence. It seems most unlikely that the tenant would part with the only key to the premises; if she did, that was an unwise decision.
The flooding event occurred on or about 1 February 2023 by a person or persons entering the unlocked premises, putting a plug in the sink, and turning on the tap. Mr Allan thought it was likely a prank by children.
Regardless, the tenant cannot be liable for the damage from the flooding (accepted by the landlord’s insurer). She did not cause the damage, nor was the damage caused by a person at the premises with her consent.
That the premises were unlocked does not serve to place liability back on the tenant.
The landlord’s loss of rent was both a result of the flooding event (not caused by the tenant) and the insurer’s refusal to replace the damaged carpets. The landlord said he was in dispute with his insurer and that caused the delay.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for losses arising from the flood event. Result
The landlord’s claims are allowed in the amount of $2,803.24. The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond the tenant must pay the landlord $1,483.24 which include the filing fee on the landlord’s application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4558870 — net $1,483.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for repairs to walls etc - painting, materials, landlord labour (depreciated	$1,000.00	Compensation for repairs to walls etc - painting, materials, landlord labour (depreciated
Dump fees	$57.80	Dump fees
Cleaning	$475.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and tidying exterior of premises including landlord labour	$1,250.00	Rubbish removal and tidying exterior of premises including landlord labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,483.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,483.24

Order

Stephanie Williams must pay Alexica Investments Limited $1,483.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 (5113303-009) to Alexica Investments Limited immediately.
The application for the insurance excess for damage following a flood and for loss of rent compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Allan for the landlord company attended by phone from the UK. His property manager Ms Harwood attended in person.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, loss of rent compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I heard evidence from both parties and from Ms Harwood. I have also considered the documentary evidence provided mostly by the landlord but also by the tenant.

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 tenancy ended on 10 February 2023 although the tenant vacated the premises before then. The landlord charged rent to 8 February 2023. There is no claim for rent arrears.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord had to arrange for the premises to be cleaned and for the rubbish to be removed and dumped.
The tenant alleges that she could not enter the premises following a flooding event on 1 February 2023. Before then, she alleges that she gave her only key to the premises to Ms Harwood and after that had no key.
The evidence does not establish that the tenant was prevented from entering the premises before the tenancy ended, other than for 2-3 days after the flood when the carpets were cleaned.
The landlord’s photos establish that the tenant did not comply with her statutory responsibilities upon vacating the tenancy.
Although the tenant claims that the landlord allowed her further time to remove rubbish, but then removed the rubbish before she had a chance to, that evidence is disputed by the landlord.
I find the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal and dump fees proved by the evidence produced by the landlord – photos, invoices, and the oral evidence Mr Allan and Ms Harwood gave.

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. Walls throughout the premises were damaged and marked and had to be plastered and repainted. The landlord has limited the claim for repairs only to the part of the contractor’s invoice that relates to the damaged walls and ceiling, required materials, and the landlord’s labour to assist with the repairs.
The damage for which compensation is awarded is for damage that is more than fair wear and tear, and for which the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant accepted liability for some of the damage.
I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord to take into account depreciation. The tenancy lasted three and a half years and allowance must be made for both depreciation and fair wear and tear over that time.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess on the flood damage claim ($550.00) and for loss of rent compensation ($4,070.00).
Ms Harwood acknowledged that she did not know how the damage occurred. She said she did not believe that the tenant caused the flooding event.
The tenant gave evidence that Ms Harwood asked her for the key to the premises and it was agreed that a key would be left. Ms Harwood said the agreement reached was that the tenant would get a key cut and leave a key for her and retain the other.
The tenant said she left the only key for Ms Harwood after which she could not lock the premises.
Given that the tenant still had some of her goods at the premises after 7 January 2023 when she left the key for Ms Harwood, I was not convinced by the tenant’s evidence. It seems most unlikely that the tenant would part with the only key to the premises; if she did, that was an unwise decision.
The flooding event occurred on or about 1 February 2023 by a person or persons entering the unlocked premises, putting a plug in the sink, and turning on the tap. Mr Allan thought it was likely a prank by children.
Regardless, the tenant cannot be liable for the damage from the flooding (accepted by the landlord’s insurer). She did not cause the damage, nor was the damage caused by a person at the premises with her consent.
That the premises were unlocked does not serve to place liability back on the tenant.
The landlord’s loss of rent was both a result of the flooding event (not caused by the tenant) and the insurer’s refusal to replace the damaged carpets. The landlord said he was in dispute with his insurer and that caused the delay.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for losses arising from the flood event. Result
The landlord’s claims are allowed in the amount of $2,803.24. The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond the tenant must pay the landlord $1,483.24 which include the filing fee on the landlord’s application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558870 — Property damage at 87 Archibald Street, Tinwald, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558870 — Property damage at 87 Archibald Street, Tinwald, Ashburton 7700

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