What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4588712?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4588712?

Cleaning: $171.73 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $342.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,325.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Gate: $1,181.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $244.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588712?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9260938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4588712?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4588712?

Cleaning: $171.73 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $342.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,325.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Gate: $1,181.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $244.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588712?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9260938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 Endcliffe Road, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4588712 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

86 Endcliffe Road, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4588712 — Rent arrears | 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 4588712 — net $5,285.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2.4.2023	$3,325.71	Rent arrears to 2.4.2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Pest control	$342.70	Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$171.73	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$244.20	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Replace gate	$1,181.00	Repairs: Replace gate
Net award	$5,285.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,285.78

Claims and awards for application 4588712 — net $5,285.78 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2.4.2023

Amount: $3,325.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2.4.2023

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Pest control

Amount: $342.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $171.73
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $244.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Pest Control Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Paul Galbraith must pay Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Kei Louie $5,285.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal order dated 28 March 2023 in application #4500352 is incorporated into this Order.

Reasons

Ms Kristensen attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr Galbraith, the tenant, did not attend. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 April 2023. The Tribunal made a previous order in application #4500352 dated 28 March 2023, which dealt with rent arrears to 28 March 2023, which I incorporate into this Order.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing from 29 March 2023 to 2 April 2023, the end of the tenancy, which was $285.71. So, incorporating the Tribunal Order dated 28 March 2023 in application #4500352, with rent arrears owed after the making of that order, the total rent arrears owing by the tenant to the landlord is $3,325.71 to 2 April 2023. This includes credit for the bond of $1,280.00 refunded to the landlord pursuant to the Tribunal order in application #4500352.

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 landlord provided photographs of the rubbish left on the property by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. This included old mattresses, multiple bags of rubbish, old boxes and many other items. The landlord claimed $244.20 for rubbish removal and provided an invoice to this effect. I find this to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. Therefore, the landlord is awarded $244.20 for rubbish removal.
The landlord said the carpet smelled strongly of the tenant’s dog and had urine stains on it from the dog. The urine stains were apparently in 3 different areas of the lounge and in the hallway also. The landlord provided photographs of the urine stains on the carpet. The landlord claimed $171.73 for cleaning and deodorising the carpet, which I find to be reasonable in the circumstances. Thus, the landlord is awarded $171.73 for the carpet cleaning.
The landlord further claimed $342.70 for the cost of pest control, in treating the property for fleas at the end of the tenancy. Ms Kristensen said the fleas had been evident and were jumping on her and the new tenants she showed through the property right after this tenancy ended. Only one flea treatment was apparently required. The cost of the flea treatment is reasonable in the circumstances, in my view. The landlord is awarded $342.70 for the flea treatment.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. That the tenant removed the main gate to the entrance to the property and did not replace it. The landlord provided some photographs of the former metal gate at the entrance during a property inspection. Ms Kristensen said the tenant told them he was storing the gate, despite them asking him to replace it. The gate was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the gap where the gate was supposed to be. b. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. c. I find the landlord has proved it is more likely than not that the tenant either damaged or removed and took the gate. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant so the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost of the gate minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. d. The landlord provided a quote dated 24 July 2023 for $1,701.00 to replace the gate. The materials quoted included a strainer post, full frame gate and gudegons, which totalled $401.00. There was also an estimate of 20 hours labour @ $65.00/hour to install the post and gate. e. However, I find 20 hours of labour to install the gate to be excessive, as that would equate to around 2.5 days of work. I find 1.5 days of labour to be more reasonable to install the gate, which would equate to 12 hours $65.00/hour for a total of $780.00. Therefore, with materials and what I find to be a reasonable labour cost, the total allowed to the landlord to replace the gate is $1,181.00.
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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In relation to the metal gate, I find the metal gate would be expected to last a lifetime and so does not need to be depreciated. Thus, I award $1,181.00 to the landlord to replace and install the gate.
Because Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Kei Louie 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 4588712 — net $5,285.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2.4.2023	$3,325.71	Rent arrears to 2.4.2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Pest control	$342.70	Pest control
Carpet Cleaning	$171.73	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$244.20	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Replace gate	$1,181.00	Repairs: Replace gate
Net award	$5,285.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,285.78

Claims and awards for application 4588712 — net $5,285.78 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2.4.2023

Amount: $3,325.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2.4.2023

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Pest control

Amount: $342.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $171.73
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $244.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Pest Control Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Paul Galbraith must pay Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Kei Louie $5,285.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal order dated 28 March 2023 in application #4500352 is incorporated into this Order.

Reasons

Ms Kristensen attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr Galbraith, the tenant, did not attend. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 April 2023. The Tribunal made a previous order in application #4500352 dated 28 March 2023, which dealt with rent arrears to 28 March 2023, which I incorporate into this Order.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing from 29 March 2023 to 2 April 2023, the end of the tenancy, which was $285.71. So, incorporating the Tribunal Order dated 28 March 2023 in application #4500352, with rent arrears owed after the making of that order, the total rent arrears owing by the tenant to the landlord is $3,325.71 to 2 April 2023. This includes credit for the bond of $1,280.00 refunded to the landlord pursuant to the Tribunal order in application #4500352.

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 landlord provided photographs of the rubbish left on the property by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. This included old mattresses, multiple bags of rubbish, old boxes and many other items. The landlord claimed $244.20 for rubbish removal and provided an invoice to this effect. I find this to be a reasonable cost in the circumstances. Therefore, the landlord is awarded $244.20 for rubbish removal.
The landlord said the carpet smelled strongly of the tenant’s dog and had urine stains on it from the dog. The urine stains were apparently in 3 different areas of the lounge and in the hallway also. The landlord provided photographs of the urine stains on the carpet. The landlord claimed $171.73 for cleaning and deodorising the carpet, which I find to be reasonable in the circumstances. Thus, the landlord is awarded $171.73 for the carpet cleaning.
The landlord further claimed $342.70 for the cost of pest control, in treating the property for fleas at the end of the tenancy. Ms Kristensen said the fleas had been evident and were jumping on her and the new tenants she showed through the property right after this tenancy ended. Only one flea treatment was apparently required. The cost of the flea treatment is reasonable in the circumstances, in my view. The landlord is awarded $342.70 for the flea treatment.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. That the tenant removed the main gate to the entrance to the property and did not replace it. The landlord provided some photographs of the former metal gate at the entrance during a property inspection. Ms Kristensen said the tenant told them he was storing the gate, despite them asking him to replace it. The gate was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the gap where the gate was supposed to be. b. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. c. I find the landlord has proved it is more likely than not that the tenant either damaged or removed and took the gate. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant so the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost of the gate minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. d. The landlord provided a quote dated 24 July 2023 for $1,701.00 to replace the gate. The materials quoted included a strainer post, full frame gate and gudegons, which totalled $401.00. There was also an estimate of 20 hours labour @ $65.00/hour to install the post and gate. e. However, I find 20 hours of labour to install the gate to be excessive, as that would equate to around 2.5 days of work. I find 1.5 days of labour to be more reasonable to install the gate, which would equate to 12 hours $65.00/hour for a total of $780.00. Therefore, with materials and what I find to be a reasonable labour cost, the total allowed to the landlord to replace the gate is $1,181.00.
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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In relation to the metal gate, I find the metal gate would be expected to last a lifetime and so does not need to be depreciated. Thus, I award $1,181.00 to the landlord to replace and install the gate.
Because Home Rental Services Limited As Agent For Kei Louie has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588712 — Rent arrears at 86 Endcliffe Road, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588712 — Rent arrears at 86 Endcliffe Road, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

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