What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4570112?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4570112?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570112?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9472142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4570112?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4570112?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4570112?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4570112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9472142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32A Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4570112 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570112 — net $3,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$3,250.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,270.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Josie Pirini must pay Rent Now Property Management Limited As Agent For Jup Investment Ltd $3,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. The Tenant left behind a substantial amount of rubbish which required two skip bins to remove it. The rubbish included couches, rugs, full rubbish bins, a washing machine, a garage door and a large wooden frame. It took approximately two days to dispose of the rubbish. Photographs of the rubbish and an invoice was provided to substantiate the hire of the skip bin and labour to remove the rubbish.
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: wall damage, smashed window panels in the front door, displaced garage door, missing curtain rails, broken cistern and toilet seat cover, missing towel rails, broken meter board cover, damaged kitchen cupboard door and damaged ranch slider.
Wall damage- The walls in bedroom 3 was damaged with cracks and holes which appeared to be caused from punch marks. The walls in bedroom 4 had multiple holes. The walls in the lounge and hallway had drawings all over them. The walls required patching and repainting. An ingoing inspection report was provided and photographs of the wall damage.
When the Landlord discovered the wall damage, the Tenant advised it was due to family issues which broke out into an argument. The Tenant said they would fix the wall damage before they vacated which they failed to do.
The Landlord submitted the house was a 1960’s weatherboard house but it had been renovated right before the Tenant moved in. This included a paint job.
An invoice for the repairs was provided.
Front door- Three of the glass panels on the front door were smashed and replaced with cardboard. This was discovered during a mid-tenancy inspection in March 2023 and the Tenant submitted it was caused by the wind slamming the door shut. The Landlord submitted this could not be caused by the wind as the door was very solid and heavy which would require great force for it to slam shut. There was also fairly thick carpet under the door which would have prevented this. The Tenant did not notify the Landlord of this damage.
Garage door- The garage door was removed and left on the floor of the garage. A whole new door was installed. It appeared as if it had been ripped out by perhaps a van or large vehicle. An invoice was provided to substantiate the repairs. Ingoing inspection reports were provided to show the door was intact during the tenancy.
Curtain rails- There were curtain rails and curtains that were missing at the end in all four bedrooms. Photographs of the curtains at the start of the tenancy were provided and an invoice to substantiate the repairs. The Tenant advised she may have packed these away but failed to leave them behind when she vacated.
Toilet- The cistern and seat cover of the toilet was broken during the tenancy. The Tenant admitted to standing on the toilet seat which caused it to break and they advised the Landlord in March 2023. The Landlord was going to send a Plumber to repair this but the Tenant insisted on doing it herself. This was never fixed by the end of the tenancy. The rails in the shower were also broken. An invoice and ingoing inspection photographs were provided.
Meter board cover- The Meter board box was missing the glass panels. There was no notification or explanation by the Tenant as to how this was damaged. The Landlord discovered it sometime in May 2023 and gave the Tenant time to repair it but she failed to do this during the tenancy. An invoice to repair was provided. No in going photograph was provided to prove the damage was caused during the tenancy however I find it more likely than not that this was caused by the Tenant.
Kitchen cupboards- The corner kitchen cupboard door was missing at the end of the tenancy. There was also a latch that was loosened on the doors. The Tenant was going to repair this but failed to. The door was missing at the end of the tenancy. A photograph of the damaged door and invoice was provided to prove the repairs.
Bedroom 3 ranch-slider door- The glass was smashed on the ranch-slider door which the Tenant repaired however when it was fixed, the rollers and lock remained damaged. This was discovered in December 2022. The door required removing and refitting. An invoice was provided to substantiate the repairs.
The Landlord provided their insurance statement and only claimed for the excess.
The damage is more than wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved their case.
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.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee. The Landlord has not requested name suppression so this has not been ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4570112 — net $3,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$3,250.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,270.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Josie Pirini must pay Rent Now Property Management Limited As Agent For Jup Investment Ltd $3,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. The Tenant left behind a substantial amount of rubbish which required two skip bins to remove it. The rubbish included couches, rugs, full rubbish bins, a washing machine, a garage door and a large wooden frame. It took approximately two days to dispose of the rubbish. Photographs of the rubbish and an invoice was provided to substantiate the hire of the skip bin and labour to remove the rubbish.
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: wall damage, smashed window panels in the front door, displaced garage door, missing curtain rails, broken cistern and toilet seat cover, missing towel rails, broken meter board cover, damaged kitchen cupboard door and damaged ranch slider.
Wall damage- The walls in bedroom 3 was damaged with cracks and holes which appeared to be caused from punch marks. The walls in bedroom 4 had multiple holes. The walls in the lounge and hallway had drawings all over them. The walls required patching and repainting. An ingoing inspection report was provided and photographs of the wall damage.
When the Landlord discovered the wall damage, the Tenant advised it was due to family issues which broke out into an argument. The Tenant said they would fix the wall damage before they vacated which they failed to do.
The Landlord submitted the house was a 1960’s weatherboard house but it had been renovated right before the Tenant moved in. This included a paint job.
An invoice for the repairs was provided.
Front door- Three of the glass panels on the front door were smashed and replaced with cardboard. This was discovered during a mid-tenancy inspection in March 2023 and the Tenant submitted it was caused by the wind slamming the door shut. The Landlord submitted this could not be caused by the wind as the door was very solid and heavy which would require great force for it to slam shut. There was also fairly thick carpet under the door which would have prevented this. The Tenant did not notify the Landlord of this damage.
Garage door- The garage door was removed and left on the floor of the garage. A whole new door was installed. It appeared as if it had been ripped out by perhaps a van or large vehicle. An invoice was provided to substantiate the repairs. Ingoing inspection reports were provided to show the door was intact during the tenancy.
Curtain rails- There were curtain rails and curtains that were missing at the end in all four bedrooms. Photographs of the curtains at the start of the tenancy were provided and an invoice to substantiate the repairs. The Tenant advised she may have packed these away but failed to leave them behind when she vacated.
Toilet- The cistern and seat cover of the toilet was broken during the tenancy. The Tenant admitted to standing on the toilet seat which caused it to break and they advised the Landlord in March 2023. The Landlord was going to send a Plumber to repair this but the Tenant insisted on doing it herself. This was never fixed by the end of the tenancy. The rails in the shower were also broken. An invoice and ingoing inspection photographs were provided.
Meter board cover- The Meter board box was missing the glass panels. There was no notification or explanation by the Tenant as to how this was damaged. The Landlord discovered it sometime in May 2023 and gave the Tenant time to repair it but she failed to do this during the tenancy. An invoice to repair was provided. No in going photograph was provided to prove the damage was caused during the tenancy however I find it more likely than not that this was caused by the Tenant.
Kitchen cupboards- The corner kitchen cupboard door was missing at the end of the tenancy. There was also a latch that was loosened on the doors. The Tenant was going to repair this but failed to. The door was missing at the end of the tenancy. A photograph of the damaged door and invoice was provided to prove the repairs.
Bedroom 3 ranch-slider door- The glass was smashed on the ranch-slider door which the Tenant repaired however when it was fixed, the rollers and lock remained damaged. This was discovered in December 2022. The door required removing and refitting. An invoice was provided to substantiate the repairs.
The Landlord provided their insurance statement and only claimed for the excess.
The damage is more than wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved their case.
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.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee. The Landlord has not requested name suppression so this has not been ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570112 — Property damage at 32A Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4570112 — Property damage at 32A Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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