What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600910?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4600910?

Cleaning: $272.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $770.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $229.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $819.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9382584-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4600910?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4600910?

Cleaning: $272.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $770.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $229.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $819.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9382584-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Donegal Street, Cromwell, Cromwell 9310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600910 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600910 — net $3,472.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$770.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Rangehood filter replacement	$160.77	Repairs: Rangehood filter replacement
Repairs: Damage to walls - Insurance Excess	$1,100.00	Repairs: Damage to walls - Insurance Excess
Carpet Cleaning	$272.00	Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$229.14	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (Depreciation applied	$100.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (Depreciation applied
Rubbish removal	$819.67	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,472.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,472.02

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. An attempt was made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided however this was unsuccessful.

This was a continuation from a face-to-face hearing on 27 July 2023 at Queenstown. The matter was adjourned to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide proper evidence in respect of damage to the property. The tenant also failed to appear on this earlier date at Queenstown.

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 carpet was also left in an unsatisfactory state which required professional cleaning. Having sighted the photographic evidence filed in support I am satisfied that the tenant breached his obligations in respect of these claims.

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: A door window was broken, the rangehood filter was damaged beyond repair and there was significant damage to a number of walls. I find that the damage was intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have sighted photographic evidence in support of these claims.

The amounts ordered are proved. I also award the claim for repairs to the walls, less the insurance proceeds received of $447.95.

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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The carpet was installed in 2017. I therefore award a reduced amount for carpet replacement to reflect the age.

Because Cromwell Real Estate Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600910 — net $3,472.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$770.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Rangehood filter replacement	$160.77	Repairs: Rangehood filter replacement
Repairs: Damage to walls - Insurance Excess	$1,100.00	Repairs: Damage to walls - Insurance Excess
Carpet Cleaning	$272.00	Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$229.14	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (Depreciation applied	$100.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement (Depreciation applied
Rubbish removal	$819.67	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,472.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,472.02

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jonathan Vaughan must pay Cromwell Real Estate Limited $3,472.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. An attempt was made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided however this was unsuccessful.
This was a continuation from a face-to-face hearing on 27 July 2023 at Queenstown. The matter was adjourned to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide proper evidence in respect of damage to the property. The tenant also failed to appear on this earlier date at Queenstown.
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 carpet was also left in an unsatisfactory state which required professional cleaning. Having sighted the photographic evidence filed in support I am satisfied that the tenant breached his obligations in respect of these claims.
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: A door window was broken, the rangehood filter was damaged beyond repair and there was significant damage to a number of walls. I find that the damage was intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have sighted photographic evidence in support of these claims.
The amounts ordered are proved. I also award the claim for repairs to the walls, less the insurance proceeds received of $447.95.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The carpet was installed in 2017. I therefore award a reduced amount for carpet replacement to reflect the age.
Because Cromwell Real Estate Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600910 — Property damage at 25 Donegal Street, Cromwell, Cromwell 9310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600910 — Property damage at 25 Donegal Street, Cromwell, Cromwell 9310

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