What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4622150?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4622150?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $691.80 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Curtains and curtain t…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Gardens and exterior t…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent Due To Failure To Vacat…: $1,052.86 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4526190 D…: $741.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $654.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $255.88 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $287.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,814.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622150?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9504162-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4622150?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4622150?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $691.80 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Curtains and curtain t…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Gardens and exterior t…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent Due To Failure To Vacat…: $1,052.86 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4526190 D…: $741.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $654.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $255.88 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $287.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,814.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622150?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622150?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9504162-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Paradise Road, Coopers Beach 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4622150 — Property damage

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4622150 — net $7,972.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 23 May – 28 May 2023	$287.14	Rent arrears 23 May – 28 May 2023
Previous order application 4526190 dated 17 May 2023	$741.87	Previous order application 4526190 dated 17 May 2023
Loss of rent due to failure to vacate	$1,052.86	Loss of rent due to failure to vacate
Rubbish removal	$2,814.65	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$691.80	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$654.45	Lock/key replacement
Repairs - holes in walls, electrical fittings, etc	$255.88	Repairs - holes in walls, electrical fittings, etc
Compensation: Curtains and curtain tracks	$400.00	Curtains and curtain tracks
Compensation: Water damage to laundry floor	$400.00	Water damage to laundry floor
Compensation: Gardens and exterior tidy up	$400.00	Gardens and exterior tidy up
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	40. On the evidence available to me I will award $400.00.
Net award	$7,972.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,972.09

On 17 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy, awarding rent arrears of $2,061.43 to 22 May 2023, and releasing the bond to the landlord 1

The tenant vacated on 28 May 2023.

The tenant’s partner did not vacate. He behaved aggressively towards the property managers, threatening violence and threatening to burn down the home.

With the assistance of the police, the tenant’s partner left on 19 June 2023.

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears to the date that the tenant’s partner left, cleaning, rubbish removal, change of locks, and repair costs.

The hearing took place today in Kaitaia.

Ms Vokins, Ms Ponsonby, and Ms Leonard represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Rent arrears

The previous order awarded rent arrears to 22 May 2023.

Tenants are liable for rent arrears if they remain in possession of the premises after the termination of the tenancy 2 . Ms Blyth is liable for rent arrears from 23 May to 28 May. Failure to vacate

Tenants must quit the premises at the termination of the tenancy 3 .

Ms Blyth left on 28 May. Her partner did not leave until 19 June. The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears to that date.

Ms Blyth cannot be liable for rent arrears beyond the date that she left the property.

However, tenants can be liable if they fail to meet their obligations at the end of the tenancy (for example, by leaving unrepaired damage, or failing to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition) and the consequence of this 1 Far North Real Estate (2010) Ltd v Blyth [2023] NZTT 4526190 2 Section 60(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA failure is that the landlord is unable to re-rent the premises for a prolonged period.

Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person [...] who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of omission of the tenant

In this instance: a. Ms Blyth’s partner was at the premises with her permission. b. Ms Blyth’s tenancy agreement states that the RTA applies to the agreement. c. Ms Blyth’s partner’s act of failing to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy was a breach of section 40(1)(i)(e) RTA, and would have been a breach of the tenancy agreement if it had been Ms Blyth’s action.

Therefore, applying section 41, Ms Blyth is liable for the consequences of that act.

The consequence was that the landlord could not re-take possession and re-let the premises.

The claim for compensation for the full period from 29 May to 19 June is fair and reasonable given that even after taking back possession there was a further delay in the opportunity to re-let the premises due to the amount of rubbish left at the premises and the damage to the premises. Rubbish removal, cleaning

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must remove all their rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy 4 .

The landlords provided photographs showing the condition of the premises when they re-took possession.

There was an extraordinary amount of rubbish and abandoned belongings left at the premises.

The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

The carpet, which was in average condition with some stains at the beginning of this tenancy in 2019, was heavily stained in all areas. 4 Section 40(1(e)(i) RTA

The claims for rubbish removal, cleaning, and carpet cleaning costs are proven, and are fair and reasonable having regard to the landlords’ photographs. Locks

Tenants cannot change the locks during the tenancy without the landlord’s consent 5 .

The landlords’ keys would not work after the they re-took possession.

The tenant is liable for the cost of changing the locks so that the landlord could gain entry.

The cost claimed is proven. Repairs

There was damage to the premises during the tenancy including: a. Holes in walls. b. Most light fittings damaged. c. Curtains stained and damaged, curtain tracks damaged. d. Water damage to laundry floor.

The cost of repairing the holes in walls and light fittings is proven.

The cost of replacing all of the curtains and curtain rails would be substantial. The landlord’s claim seeks compensation on the basis of depreciated value. The claim is fair and reasonable.

The landlords became aware of water damage to the laundry floor at the end of the tenancy. The location of the damage, and the fact that there is no evidence of any pipe leaks, indicates that the damage was caused by an overflowing tub.

The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not proven that the damage was caused by anything other than a careless or intentional action by herself or by someone who was at the premises with her consent. Therefore I find that the tenant is liable for the damage to the floor 6 .

On the basis that the damage is mostly to have been caused carelessly rather than intentionally, the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess, which is $400.00 7 . 5 Section 46(2) RTA 6 Section 49B(8)(b) RTA 7 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA Garden work

The tenant was responsible for maintaining the gardens.

The claim seeks $4,573.00 for exterior work per a quote from P&K Landscapers.

The quote includes work that is beyond the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the gardens in a reasonably tidy condition, including: a. Removal of small trees and shrubs. b. Replacement of a section of broken board on front deck. c. Removal of large toe toe bush. d. Digging an open drain to allow to drain away from around front of house and water tank overflow. e. Cleaning out weeds, grass and rubbish from gutters. f. Waterblasting house sides and deck.

The rest of the quote – removing vegetation, compost, etc – could potentially be within the scope of the tenant’s responsibility, but the evidence provided in support of this part of the claim is not persuasive.

The photographs provided to me show that some parts of the gardens are overgrown. There is a basis for an award of some compensation for general garden tidy up.

On the evidence available to me I will award $400.00. Filing fee

The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 8 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4622150 — net $7,972.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 23 May – 28 May 2023	$287.14	Rent arrears 23 May – 28 May 2023
Previous order application 4526190 dated 17 May 2023	$741.87	Previous order application 4526190 dated 17 May 2023
Loss of rent due to failure to vacate	$1,052.86	Loss of rent due to failure to vacate
Rubbish removal	$2,814.65	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$691.80	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$654.45	Lock/key replacement
Repairs - holes in walls, electrical fittings, etc	$255.88	Repairs - holes in walls, electrical fittings, etc
Compensation: Curtains and curtain tracks	$400.00	Curtains and curtain tracks
Compensation: Water damage to laundry floor	$400.00	Water damage to laundry floor
Compensation: Gardens and exterior tidy up	$400.00	Gardens and exterior tidy up
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	40. On the evidence available to me I will award $400.00.
Net award	$7,972.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,972.09

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Janelle Blyth must pay Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited $7,972.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

On 17 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy, awarding rent arrears of $2,061.43 to 22 May 2023, and releasing the bond to the landlord 1
The tenant vacated on 28 May 2023.
The tenant’s partner did not vacate. He behaved aggressively towards the property managers, threatening violence and threatening to burn down the home.
With the assistance of the police, the tenant’s partner left on 19 June 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears to the date that the tenant’s partner left, cleaning, rubbish removal, change of locks, and repair costs.
The hearing took place today in Kaitaia.
Ms Vokins, Ms Ponsonby, and Ms Leonard represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Rent arrears
The previous order awarded rent arrears to 22 May 2023.
Tenants are liable for rent arrears if they remain in possession of the premises after the termination of the tenancy 2 . Ms Blyth is liable for rent arrears from 23 May to 28 May. Failure to vacate
Tenants must quit the premises at the termination of the tenancy 3 .
Ms Blyth left on 28 May. Her partner did not leave until 19 June. The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears to that date.
Ms Blyth cannot be liable for rent arrears beyond the date that she left the property.
However, tenants can be liable if they fail to meet their obligations at the end of the tenancy (for example, by leaving unrepaired damage, or failing to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition) and the consequence of this 1 Far North Real Estate (2010) Ltd v Blyth [2023] NZTT 4526190 2 Section 60(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA failure is that the landlord is unable to re-rent the premises for a prolonged period.
Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person [...] who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of omission of the tenant
In this instance: a. Ms Blyth’s partner was at the premises with her permission. b. Ms Blyth’s tenancy agreement states that the RTA applies to the agreement. c. Ms Blyth’s partner’s act of failing to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy was a breach of section 40(1)(i)(e) RTA, and would have been a breach of the tenancy agreement if it had been Ms Blyth’s action.
Therefore, applying section 41, Ms Blyth is liable for the consequences of that act.
The consequence was that the landlord could not re-take possession and re-let the premises.
The claim for compensation for the full period from 29 May to 19 June is fair and reasonable given that even after taking back possession there was a further delay in the opportunity to re-let the premises due to the amount of rubbish left at the premises and the damage to the premises. Rubbish removal, cleaning
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must remove all their rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy 4 .
The landlords provided photographs showing the condition of the premises when they re-took possession.
There was an extraordinary amount of rubbish and abandoned belongings left at the premises.
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The carpet, which was in average condition with some stains at the beginning of this tenancy in 2019, was heavily stained in all areas. 4 Section 40(1(e)(i) RTA
The claims for rubbish removal, cleaning, and carpet cleaning costs are proven, and are fair and reasonable having regard to the landlords’ photographs. Locks
Tenants cannot change the locks during the tenancy without the landlord’s consent 5 .
The landlords’ keys would not work after the they re-took possession.
The tenant is liable for the cost of changing the locks so that the landlord could gain entry.
The cost claimed is proven. Repairs
There was damage to the premises during the tenancy including: a. Holes in walls. b. Most light fittings damaged. c. Curtains stained and damaged, curtain tracks damaged. d. Water damage to laundry floor.
The cost of repairing the holes in walls and light fittings is proven.
The cost of replacing all of the curtains and curtain rails would be substantial. The landlord’s claim seeks compensation on the basis of depreciated value. The claim is fair and reasonable.
The landlords became aware of water damage to the laundry floor at the end of the tenancy. The location of the damage, and the fact that there is no evidence of any pipe leaks, indicates that the damage was caused by an overflowing tub.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not proven that the damage was caused by anything other than a careless or intentional action by herself or by someone who was at the premises with her consent. Therefore I find that the tenant is liable for the damage to the floor 6 .
On the basis that the damage is mostly to have been caused carelessly rather than intentionally, the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess, which is $400.00 7 . 5 Section 46(2) RTA 6 Section 49B(8)(b) RTA 7 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA Garden work
The tenant was responsible for maintaining the gardens.
The claim seeks $4,573.00 for exterior work per a quote from P&K Landscapers.
The quote includes work that is beyond the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the gardens in a reasonably tidy condition, including: a. Removal of small trees and shrubs. b. Replacement of a section of broken board on front deck. c. Removal of large toe toe bush. d. Digging an open drain to allow to drain away from around front of house and water tank overflow. e. Cleaning out weeds, grass and rubbish from gutters. f. Waterblasting house sides and deck.
The rest of the quote – removing vegetation, compost, etc – could potentially be within the scope of the tenant’s responsibility, but the evidence provided in support of this part of the claim is not persuasive.
The photographs provided to me show that some parts of the gardens are overgrown. There is a basis for an award of some compensation for general garden tidy up.
On the evidence available to me I will award $400.00. Filing fee
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 8 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622150 — Property damage at 35 Paradise Road, Coopers Beach 0420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622150 — Property damage at 35 Paradise Road, Coopers Beach 0420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions