What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4587930?

The tribunal order states: Megan Elizabeth Waye and Trent Nathan Lee must pay Zhuo Lin, Cooper And

How much money was awarded in case 4587930?

Air Conditioning Remote: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handles: $84.98 awarded to landlord; Extra Paint: $191.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $90.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,401.59 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4587930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4587930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558414-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4587930?

The tribunal order states: Megan Elizabeth Waye and Trent Nathan Lee must pay Zhuo Lin, Cooper And

How much money was awarded in case 4587930?

Air Conditioning Remote: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $695.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handles: $84.98 awarded to landlord; Extra Paint: $191.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $90.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,401.59 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4587930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4587930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558414-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Attwood Road, Paremoremo, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4587930 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4587930 — net $1,612.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$620.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$695.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$695.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$356.50	Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs/batteries	$90.15	Light bulbs/batteries
Curtain replacement	$288.75	Curtain replacement
Repairs	$1,401.59	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$65.70	Rubbish removal
Air conditioning remote	$102.35	Air conditioning remote
Door handles	$84.98	Door handles
Extra paint	$191.80	Extra paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,612.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,612.26

Order

Megan Elizabeth Waye and Trent Nathan Lee must pay Zhuo Lin, Cooper And Co Real Estate Hayley Forlong and Cooper And Co Real Estate Limited Kristee Reimann $1,612.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6233999-010) to Zhuo Lin, Cooper And Co Real Estate Hayley Forlong and Cooper And Co Real Estate Limited Kristee Reimann immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The remaining landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Background
The tenancy began on 18 June 2021.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The last day of the tenancy was to be 6 October 2022.
The landlord said that the tenant asked for an extension to the date for ending the tenancy and this was granted until 16 October 2022. After this date the tenant had still not vacated the tenancy, so the landlord applied for and obtained a possession order on 28 October 2022 (TT 4421909). The landlord secured possession of the premises on 8 November 2022 with the assistance of the court bailiff.
There were two tenants to this tenancy. While Ms Waye had applied only in her name the tenancy agreement names two tenants and there was not an amendment to the tenancy agreement. Mr Lee advised that he moved out of the tenancy sometime in October 2021, but he has not been released from the joint tenancy so remains a tenant even though not residing at the premises.
Both tenants are therefore named in this order. Tenant’s application
The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, 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 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 return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: set of curtains from one bedroom. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
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: holes in walls, ceiling, bathroom, garage, door. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord had made other claims in respect of repairs carried out. The repairs claimed above were carried out by a contractor, but apparently further work was required, and the landlord carried out the remaining work. The landlord sought the cost of purchasing additional paint. I am not persuaded that the amount of paint purchased (in addition to what the contractor had purchased) was necessary taking account of the damage. The landlord said that they required so much paint because they were not professional painters but to take account of this the landlord has not claimed labour costs. After considering the evidence I have allowed two further four litre tins of paint to cover the landlord’s costs. The remaining extra costs are not allowed as they are not supported by the evidence produced.
The landlord claims exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant did not vacate the premises on 16 October 2022, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant in her communication with the landlord stated that she was unable to find a storage unit or house with three young children in tow. There was also some confusion because the landlord had applied to the Tribunal on 23 June 2022 to terminate the tenancy due to a 14-day notice issued for rent arrears. However, the rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date of the application or the date of hearing. The application for termination was dismissed in the Tribunal order dated 1 August 2022 (TT4343233). This order was after the date of the 90-day notice to terminate was served on the tenant so initially had caused some confusion.
At the hearing the landlord sought damages amounting to $44,000.00 based on the breach of the tenant and the delay in selling the premises. However, the landlord had an order granting possession of the premises on 28 October 2022, only 12 days after he would have had possession taking account of the extension granted.
The landlord relied on the decrease in value of all properties in Auckland during this period and it was on that basis that he claimed the amount sought.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Because Zhuo Lin, Cooper And Co Real Estate Hayley Forlong, Cooper And Co Real Estate Limited Kristee Reimann has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4587930 — net $1,612.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$620.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$695.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$695.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$356.50	Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs/batteries	$90.15	Light bulbs/batteries
Curtain replacement	$288.75	Curtain replacement
Repairs	$1,401.59	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$65.70	Rubbish removal
Air conditioning remote	$102.35	Air conditioning remote
Door handles	$84.98	Door handles
Extra paint	$191.80	Extra paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,612.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,612.26

Order

Megan Elizabeth Waye and Trent Nathan Lee must pay Zhuo Lin, Cooper And Co Real Estate Hayley Forlong and Cooper And Co Real Estate Limited Kristee Reimann $1,612.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6233999-010) to Zhuo Lin, Cooper And Co Real Estate Hayley Forlong and Cooper And Co Real Estate Limited Kristee Reimann immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The remaining landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Background
The tenancy began on 18 June 2021.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The last day of the tenancy was to be 6 October 2022.
The landlord said that the tenant asked for an extension to the date for ending the tenancy and this was granted until 16 October 2022. After this date the tenant had still not vacated the tenancy, so the landlord applied for and obtained a possession order on 28 October 2022 (TT 4421909). The landlord secured possession of the premises on 8 November 2022 with the assistance of the court bailiff.
There were two tenants to this tenancy. While Ms Waye had applied only in her name the tenancy agreement names two tenants and there was not an amendment to the tenancy agreement. Mr Lee advised that he moved out of the tenancy sometime in October 2021, but he has not been released from the joint tenancy so remains a tenant even though not residing at the premises.
Both tenants are therefore named in this order. Tenant’s application
The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, 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 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 return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: set of curtains from one bedroom. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
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: holes in walls, ceiling, bathroom, garage, door. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord had made other claims in respect of repairs carried out. The repairs claimed above were carried out by a contractor, but apparently further work was required, and the landlord carried out the remaining work. The landlord sought the cost of purchasing additional paint. I am not persuaded that the amount of paint purchased (in addition to what the contractor had purchased) was necessary taking account of the damage. The landlord said that they required so much paint because they were not professional painters but to take account of this the landlord has not claimed labour costs. After considering the evidence I have allowed two further four litre tins of paint to cover the landlord’s costs. The remaining extra costs are not allowed as they are not supported by the evidence produced.
The landlord claims exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant did not vacate the premises on 16 October 2022, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant in her communication with the landlord stated that she was unable to find a storage unit or house with three young children in tow. There was also some confusion because the landlord had applied to the Tribunal on 23 June 2022 to terminate the tenancy due to a 14-day notice issued for rent arrears. However, the rent was not 21 days in arrears at the date of the application or the date of hearing. The application for termination was dismissed in the Tribunal order dated 1 August 2022 (TT4343233). This order was after the date of the 90-day notice to terminate was served on the tenant so initially had caused some confusion.
At the hearing the landlord sought damages amounting to $44,000.00 based on the breach of the tenant and the delay in selling the premises. However, the landlord had an order granting possession of the premises on 28 October 2022, only 12 days after he would have had possession taking account of the extension granted.
The landlord relied on the decrease in value of all properties in Auckland during this period and it was on that basis that he claimed the amount sought.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Because Zhuo Lin, Cooper And Co Real Estate Hayley Forlong, Cooper And Co Real Estate Limited Kristee Reimann has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4587930 — Property damage at 68 Attwood Road, Paremoremo, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4587930 — Property damage at 68 Attwood Road, Paremoremo, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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