How much money was awarded in case 4627294?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $427.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.93 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Oven: $131.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Sheer Curtains: $33.17 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627294?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9252816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4627294?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $427.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $46.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.93 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Oven: $131.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Sheer Curtains: $33.17 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627294?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9252816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

132B Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627294 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4627294?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627294 — net $191.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$427.80	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$360.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$46.00	Lawns and Garden work
Light bulbs: ( reduced to	$31.93	Light bulbs: ( reduced to
Repairs: oven	$131.10	Repairs: oven
Repairs: garage door	$20.00	Repairs: garage door
Replace furnishings: sheer curtains	$33.17	Replace furnishings: sheer curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$191.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$191.75

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Samantha Bridget Smith must pay Ebenezer Property Management Limited $191.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $1,228.69 (6432796- 003) to Ebenezer Property Management Limited immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord applied for compensation of $1,400 in the application. However, at the hearing, he presented claims for $1,683.87. As I explained at the hearing, I cannot consider claims that were not articulated in the application because it is important that every party is fully and fairly informed of the claims against them in advance of the hearing. This is regardless of whether a party attends the hearing. For that reason, I am dismissing the claim for advertising fees of $184, and I am reducing the claim for replacement of lightbulbs to $31.93 to bring the claims within the limits of the application.

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 as shown in photos and video evidence produced at the hearing. Carpets were also dirty and stained, and the lawns were untidy.

The landlord also had to replace light bulbs.

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 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: the garage door coning was broken and required repair; the oven door hinge and light was broken and required repair; the sheer net curtains were damaged and required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

As the landlord has succeeded with the applications, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627294 — net $191.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$427.80	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$360.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$46.00	Lawns and Garden work
Light bulbs: ( reduced to	$31.93	Light bulbs: ( reduced to
Repairs: oven	$131.10	Repairs: oven
Repairs: garage door	$20.00	Repairs: garage door
Replace furnishings: sheer curtains	$33.17	Replace furnishings: sheer curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$191.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$191.75

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Samantha Bridget Smith must pay Ebenezer Property Management Limited $191.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $1,228.69 (6432796- 003) to Ebenezer Property Management Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for compensation of $1,400 in the application. However, at the hearing, he presented claims for $1,683.87. As I explained at the hearing, I cannot consider claims that were not articulated in the application because it is important that every party is fully and fairly informed of the claims against them in advance of the hearing. This is regardless of whether a party attends the hearing. For that reason, I am dismissing the claim for advertising fees of $184, and I am reducing the claim for replacement of lightbulbs to $31.93 to bring the claims within the limits of the application.

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 as shown in photos and video evidence produced at the hearing. Carpets were also dirty and stained, and the lawns were untidy.
The landlord also had to replace light bulbs.
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 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: the garage door coning was broken and required repair; the oven door hinge and light was broken and required repair; the sheer net curtains were damaged and required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As the landlord has succeeded with the applications, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627294 — Cleanliness at 132B Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627294 — Cleanliness at 132B Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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