What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600909?

The tribunal order states: Marie Oneroa-Hohua must pay Trust House Limited $5,412.70 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4600909?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.65 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $989.11 awarded to landlord; Downpipes: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $577.50 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600909?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9573714-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600909?

The tribunal order states: Marie Oneroa-Hohua must pay Trust House Limited $5,412.70 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4600909?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.65 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $989.11 awarded to landlord; Downpipes: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $577.50 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600909?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9573714-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600909 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600909 — net $5,412.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9/5/23	$989.11	Rent arrears to 9/5/23
Window repairs	$125.65	Window repairs
Repairs: downpipes	$400.00	Repairs: downpipes
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs to walls and doors	$2,800.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Rubbish removal: & gardens	$577.50	Rubbish removal: & gardens
Net award	$5,412.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,412.70

Order

Marie Oneroa-Hohua must pay Trust House Limited $5,412.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms McArthur. There was no appearance for the tenant however as she had been served with the notice of hearing, it went ahead in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before considering these claims, I note that an applicant, the landlord here, has the burden of proof placed on them to prove their claim to the required standard. This means they cannot just allege something; they must adduce evidence to persuade me that their version of events is the correct one. The standard is the civil standard of the “balance of probabilities” or what is “more likely than not”.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 May 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 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The house had not been cleaned at all and there was a significant mess left.
However, I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for cleaning is excessive on the basis that the amount is not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. In addition, the total amount charged appears out of proportion with the required statutory standard and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amount sought for cleaning accordingly.

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 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. The landlord’s insurance excess here is $7,000 and the weekly rent was $358.
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 has established that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: i. Two outdoor downpipes had been smashed, one by a car being backed into it and the other being hit by something. ii. One window had been broken (two others were alleged but substantiating evidence was not provided). iii. A number of walls and doors and holes smashed into them, and the toilet cistern was smashed.
I am satisfied that it has been established in evidence, given the nature and extent of the damage, that the damage was all either intentionally (as with the holes in the walls) or carelessly (as in with the broken downpipe). Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the repair costs.
I have reduced the amount sought for the damage in the house to what is considered reasonable on the basis of the evidence supplied. Some of the claim as can be seen from the invoice is related to standard maintenance, i.e. replacing the cabinet knobs. The landlord had already reduced the amount claimed from the invoice to account for redecoration work included however, I consider it reasonable to reduce it further based on the photographic evidence. Tenants are only responsible for repair work that they have inflicted and not expected fair wear and tear, and this was a long tenancy.
I have also reduced the amount sought for repairing the downpipes. Further time was given after the hearing for clarification evidence on this claim to be submitted. As it wasn’t, I have to make a decision on the basis of the evidence I do have. At this point it is important to reiterate that the onus of proof lies with the applicant. It is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or “more likely than not” but it still has to be met.
In considering these claims I have also 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 Trust House Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600909 — net $5,412.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9/5/23	$989.11	Rent arrears to 9/5/23
Window repairs	$125.65	Window repairs
Repairs: downpipes	$400.00	Repairs: downpipes
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs to walls and doors	$2,800.00	Repairs to walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Rubbish removal: & gardens	$577.50	Rubbish removal: & gardens
Net award	$5,412.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,412.70

Order

Marie Oneroa-Hohua must pay Trust House Limited $5,412.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms McArthur. There was no appearance for the tenant however as she had been served with the notice of hearing, it went ahead in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before considering these claims, I note that an applicant, the landlord here, has the burden of proof placed on them to prove their claim to the required standard. This means they cannot just allege something; they must adduce evidence to persuade me that their version of events is the correct one. The standard is the civil standard of the “balance of probabilities” or what is “more likely than not”.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 May 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 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The house had not been cleaned at all and there was a significant mess left.
However, I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for cleaning is excessive on the basis that the amount is not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. In addition, the total amount charged appears out of proportion with the required statutory standard and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amount sought for cleaning accordingly.

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 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. The landlord’s insurance excess here is $7,000 and the weekly rent was $358.
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 has established that the following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: i. Two outdoor downpipes had been smashed, one by a car being backed into it and the other being hit by something. ii. One window had been broken (two others were alleged but substantiating evidence was not provided). iii. A number of walls and doors and holes smashed into them, and the toilet cistern was smashed.
I am satisfied that it has been established in evidence, given the nature and extent of the damage, that the damage was all either intentionally (as with the holes in the walls) or carelessly (as in with the broken downpipe). Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the repair costs.
I have reduced the amount sought for the damage in the house to what is considered reasonable on the basis of the evidence supplied. Some of the claim as can be seen from the invoice is related to standard maintenance, i.e. replacing the cabinet knobs. The landlord had already reduced the amount claimed from the invoice to account for redecoration work included however, I consider it reasonable to reduce it further based on the photographic evidence. Tenants are only responsible for repair work that they have inflicted and not expected fair wear and tear, and this was a long tenancy.
I have also reduced the amount sought for repairing the downpipes. Further time was given after the hearing for clarification evidence on this claim to be submitted. As it wasn’t, I have to make a decision on the basis of the evidence I do have. At this point it is important to reiterate that the onus of proof lies with the applicant. It is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or “more likely than not” but it still has to be met.
In considering these claims I have also 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 Trust House Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600909 — Property damage at 43 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600909 — Property damage at 43 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810

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