What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609010?

The tribunal order states: Kailey-Riis Williams must pay Pamela Caroline Dormer $4,716.78 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4609010?

Bin Tags: $41.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Locksmith Work: $135.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,050.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $241.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $144.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $15.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $128.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609010?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9760780-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609010?

The tribunal order states: Kailey-Riis Williams must pay Pamela Caroline Dormer $4,716.78 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4609010?

Bin Tags: $41.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Locksmith Work: $135.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,050.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $241.78 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $144.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $15.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $128.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609010?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9760780-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Inca Place, Red Hill, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609010 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609010 — net $4,788.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excesses (x11	$6,050.00	Insurance excesses (x11
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electrical repairs	$241.78	Electrical repairs
Net curtain replacement	$144.90	Net curtain replacement
Towel rail replacement	$15.97	Towel rail replacement
Bin tags	$41.85	Bin tags
Locksmith work	$135.13	Locksmith work
Floor repairs	$128.84	Floor repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,788.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,788.91

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609010 — net $4,788.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excesses (x11	$6,050.00	Insurance excesses (x11
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electrical repairs	$241.78	Electrical repairs
Net curtain replacement	$144.90	Net curtain replacement
Towel rail replacement	$15.97	Towel rail replacement
Bin tags	$41.85	Bin tags
Locksmith work	$135.13	Locksmith work
Floor repairs	$128.84	Floor repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,788.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,788.91

Order

Kailey-Riis Williams must pay Pamela Caroline Dormer $4,716.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 to Pamela Caroline Dormer immediately.

Reasons

DescriptionLandlord Insurance excesses (x11)$6,050.00 Carpet Cleaning$250.00 Electrical repairs$241.78 Net curtain replacement$144.90 Towel rail replacement$15.97 Bin tags$41.85 Locksmith work$135.13 Floor repairs$128.84 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$7,028.91 Minus bond-$2,240.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,788.91

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
There was no appearance by the tenant at the hearing. When there was no appearance, we telephoned the tenant who advised she did not wish to come in or attend, because it is her child’s prize giving, however it was clear that the tenant was aware of the matter. I note the landlord confirmed that the application originally was considered by the tenancy mediation service, who also spoke to the tenant in the course of the mediation, but the tenant would not engage in that process either. In any event when I spoke to the tenant I confirmed that the hearing will proceed in her absence, and she was aware of that.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement commencing on 6 January 2022. The landlord is Pamela Dormer, and the tenant Kailey-Riis Williams. The landlord reports the tenancy ending on 21 December 2022.
It is clear from the documentation on file, and after hearing from the landlord who lived next door to the tenancy, that things did not go smoothly during the one year Tenancy. Ultimately the Tenancy came to an end, following which there was a range of damage and cleaning / rubbish removal required by the landlord, and that is the subject of this claim I will now consider.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. I note that in this case the landlord has provided photographs both prior to the tenancy, and after the Tenancy was returned. I also have other evidence such as documentation and statements from the insurance assessor, and other tradesmen. Those pieces of evidence have been considered in determining the landlords claims.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
In relation to claims for compensation from damage to the premises, to receive an order the landlord must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss the landlord has incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

I will now proceed to consider the landlords claims. I note that the first 11 claims are the insurance excess claims. In support of these claims the landlord refers to the report from the insurance assessor, Sedgwick, which details the nature of the damage in the premises. The insurance claims were accepted by the insurer, but the landlord seeks to recover the insurance excesses in relation to the claims. Bathroom flooding and damage
The landlord seeks the insurance excess on the basis that there had been flooding in the bathroom. The landlord states her understanding is that the tenant’s son was unsupervised in the bathroom, and sprayed water throughout the bathroom causing extensive damage to the floor and vanity. Extensive work was needed to remediate the bathroom. The landlord claims the insurance excess of $550.00.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Kitchen cabinets
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the kitchen cupboards where around seven doors were pulled off and other wise damaged.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Ripped vinyl in kitchen
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the kitchen vinyl. The landlord considers the damage was caused when something like an appliance was dragged along the floor.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Carpet and curtains in lounge
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the carpet and curtains in the lounge. The landlord states that the curtain’s had been ripped, the landlord believes this was from the tenants child pulling the curtains. The carpet was damage in multiple areas because of urine and faeces on the carpet.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Wall damage in lounge and kitchen
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the walls in the lounge and kitchen. The landlord states there were holes in the plasterboard wall.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Wall, door and window sill damage in bedroom 1
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the wall, door and window in bedroom 1. This includes multiple holes on the wall and drawing on the surfaces.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Carpet and curtains in bedroom 1
The landlord claims the insurance excess for replacement of carpet in bedroom 1, damaged from soiling from urine and faeces. The curtains were ripped.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Wall damage bedroom 2
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage from holes in the wall in bedroom 2.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Carpet and curtain damage bedroom 2
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to carpets in bedroom 2 from urine and faeces, and damage to curtains.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Wall and skirting damage in main bedroom
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the skirting boards in the master bedroom. The insurance report questions if this was from moving furniture, and that the windowsill had holes in it that appeared to be punctures that had been the subject of an attempted repair.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Carpet and curtains in master bedroom
The landlord claims the insurance excess for damage to the carpet in the master bedroom from urine and faeces, and the ripped curtains.
I am satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven this damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. The claim is established and the excess awarded in full. Non-insurance excess claims Carpet cleaning
As noted above, the carpets were extensively soiled throughout the tenancy with urine and faeces. I accept that is the case. The landlord states that in order to remove the carpets, they needed to be first cleaned because of the overwhelming smell and health risk from the soiling on the carpet. I am satisfied that this claim must be ordered in full. It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake this initial carpet treatment. The cost of $250.00 is ordered. Electrical work
The landlord seeks the cost for the electrician replacing a range of electrical switches and plugs that were damaged during the tenancy. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven this is not careless or intentional damage. The claim of $241.78 must be ordered in full. Net curtain damage
The landlord states that the net curtains were damaged, once possession of the premises were returned, she replaced the net curtains without delay to ensure the premises had the appearance of not being empty, hence this was prior to the insurance claim. The landlord claims $144.90. Again I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability so it is ordered in full. Towel rail
The landlord states that the hand-towel rail had been pulled off the wall, and the replacement cost for this was $15.97. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven this is not careless or intentional damage. The claim must be ordered in full. Bin tags.
The landlord claims compensation for bin tags to dispose of rubbish at the premises. The photographs confirm there was extensive rubbish at the premises. The tenant was responsible for disposing of her rubbish, so the tenant must be responsible for these costs. The total cost of the tags was $41.85 and is ordered in full. Locksmith work
The landlord has claimed compensation for key replacement. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. The landlord has claimed for the locksmith work and that is ordered in full. The invoice from ‘LockSmart’ is to the sum of $135.13. Floor damage
Because of the flooding, further damage was caused to the floor which required additional areas where the floor needed to be replaced, which cost the landlord the further sum of $128.84 to repair. The tenant has not proven this is not careless or intentional damage. The claim must be ordered in full. Construction of garage wall
The landlord states that she needed to build a wall in the shared garage to stop the tenants son getting into her part of the shared garage. The landlord was concerned that the tenants son would injure himself on the landlord goods and equipment. The landlord has claimed $550.00
As I explain to the landlord at the hearing, while I accept that her efforts with building this wall were well-meaning, to ensure that the tenants son did not access her side of the garage, it was not a cost incurred resulting from a breach on the part of the tenant, and because of that there would be no basis for the Tribunal to make an order for compensation in relation to the garage barrier.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609010 — Property damage at 9 Inca Place, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609010 — Property damage at 9 Inca Place, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions