What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4637803?

The tribunal order states: Emily May Blake must pay Leeann Dawn Bellam and Greg Bellam $4,992.46

How much money was awarded in case 4637803?

Back Door Paint: $113.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fitting Cost For The Back Door: $46.53 awarded to landlord; Paint Walls - Paint Cost: $412.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet (Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Light Hanging From Lounge Ceiling: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Bedroom 3: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: 2 doors under t…: $780.33 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Back Door: $301.95 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Back kitchen be…: $556.41 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $137.58 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic…: $522.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench b…: $45.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637803?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637803?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10123644-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4637803?

The tribunal order states: Emily May Blake must pay Leeann Dawn Bellam and Greg Bellam $4,992.46

How much money was awarded in case 4637803?

Back Door Paint: $113.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fitting Cost For The Back Door: $46.53 awarded to landlord; Paint Walls - Paint Cost: $412.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet (Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Light Hanging From Lounge Ceiling: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Bedroom 3: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: 2 doors under t…: $780.33 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Back Door: $301.95 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Back kitchen be…: $556.41 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $137.58 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic…: $522.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench b…: $45.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637803?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637803?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10123644-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52A Bay Street, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4637803 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4637803 — net $4,992.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$550.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$75.00	Water rates
Repairs: Sliding door bedroom 3	$300.00	Repairs: Sliding door bedroom 3
Repairs: Light hanging from lounge ceiling	$140.00	Repairs: Light hanging from lounge ceiling
Paint walls - paint cost	$412.00	Paint walls - paint cost
Repairs: Damaged bedroom wall	$140.00	Repairs: Damaged bedroom wall
Repairs: carpet (excess	$500.00	Repairs: carpet (excess
Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic vanity	$522.50	Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic vanity
Replace furnishings: Back door	$301.95	Replace furnishings: Back door
Back door paint	$113.86	Back door paint
Fitting cost for the back door	$46.53	Fitting cost for the back door
Replace furnishings: Back kitchen bench top	$556.41	Replace furnishings: Back kitchen bench top
Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench back board	$45.86	Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench back board
Replace furnishings: Bathroom ceiling (mildew damage	$137.58	Replace furnishings: Bathroom ceiling (mildew damage
Replace furnishings: 2 doors under the house	$780.33	Replace furnishings: 2 doors under the house
Rubbish removal: Yokohama BBQ and Basketball hoop	$100.00	Rubbish removal: Yokohama BBQ and Basketball hoop
Exemplary damage - failure to quite the premises	$250.00	Exemplary damage - failure to quite the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,992.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,992.46

Order

Emily May Blake must pay Leeann Dawn Bellam and Greg Bellam $4,992.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods (a Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop) left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$550.00 Water rates$75.00 Repairs: Sliding door bedroom 3$300.00 Repairs: Light hanging from lounge ceiling$140.00 Paint walls - paint cost$412.00 Repairs: Damaged bedroom wall$140.00 Repairs: carpet (excess)$500.00 Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic vanity$522.50 Replace furnishings: Back door$301.95 Back door paint$113.86 Fitting cost for the back door$46.53 Replace furnishings: Back kitchen bench top$556.41 Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench back board$45.86 Replace furnishings: Bathroom ceiling (mildew damage)$137.58 Replace furnishings: 2 doors under the house$780.33 Rubbish removal: Yokohama BBQ and Basketball hoop$100.00 Exemplary damage - failure to quite the premises$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,992.46 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,992.46

Reasons

The hearing was held on 19 March 2024. Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr and Mrs Bellam, the landlord, attended the hearing.
Ms Blake, the tenant, attended the hearing. Introduction
On December 20th, 2023, I presided over a hearing regarding a case brought by a landlord against Ms. Blake. After hearing both sides of the case, I adjourned the hearing to give Ms. Blake time to organise her case and present her evidence more effectively. I advised her to seek legal advice from the Community Law Centre. I advised her that she has the option of instructing a lawyer under section 93(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA"). This is because the total amount of claims against the landlord is $33,620.17, and a lawyer can help to balance the significant disparity between the parties. The landlord presented a logical argument based on evidence, while Ms Blake struggled with focus.
At today’s hearing, it became clear that Ms. Blake did not instruct a lawyer. She informed me that she was unable to find legal representation despite her efforts. Ms. Blake explained that she is a full-time mother of three boys and has limited time, finances, and experience due to living in emergency housing. She also mentioned that her health is a significant factor that affects her ability to handle the situation.
While the Community Law Centre assisted Ms. Blake with documents, I refused to accept further evidence from her during the hearing because she had ample opportunity from 21 December 2023 to the first week of March 2024 to comply with the Tribunal Order's filing deadline but did not. Ms. Blake explained that her laptop was broken and that she had only recently received it back. However, I did not accept this explanation, as Ms. Blake had enough time to file her further documents or evidence. Ms Blake sought leave to withdraw her claims against the landlord
During the hearing, I first reconfirmed the amount of money that the landlord claimed against Ms Blake and the claims for storage costs for the old Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop that remained on the premises.
After the landlord reconfirmed the amount of their claims, Ms Blake did not respond to the submissions the landlord made. Instead, she listed ten further claims against the landlord. These were as follows: a. The landlord made an unlawful entry. b. The landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. c. The landlord’s unjustified Tribunal application. d. The landlord misled the court. e. The landlord committed harassment. f. The landlord knowingly committed unlawful acts. g. The landlord did not take responsibility and shifted the responsibility to the tenant. h. Disposal of goods. i. Private and confidential information. j. Bullying and intimidation generally.
I say “further claims” because, in her application, Ms Blake alleged that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, sought compensation for living in leaking premises, and sought exemplary damages under various headings, including that the landlord issued a retaliatory notice, made her enter into a transaction that was prohibited by law, and breached her quiet enjoyment.
While Ms Blake made submissions on the allegations that the landlord unlawfully entered and breached her quiet enjoyment, some of the information she submitted was irrelevant because it did not pertain to the tenancy itself. For instance, her family circumstances and difficulty vacating the premises were irrelevant to the issues of unlawful entry or breach of quiet enjoyment.
I asked Ms Blake to point me to the evidence and/or information about how the landlord made unlawful entry and how the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. However, Ms Blake mentioned things like broken devices and private and confidential information, which were not directly relevant to unlawful entry or breach of quiet enjoyment. Ms Blake, however, said they were related issues.
Ms Blake became emotional and requested a 5-minute break. I then adjourned the hearing for 5 minutes to give her time to regroup. However, when the hearing resumed, Ms Blake was nowhere to be found. I asked the court registrar to assist me in locating her. Finally, when Ms Blake returned to the hearing room, she said she wanted to withdraw her claims as she realised she did not have sufficient evidence to support her claims, especially regarding unlawful entry and quiet enjoyment.
I asked Ms Blake if she wanted to withdraw her claims. She confirmed that she had. It is her decision whether she decides to file a new application.
I then granted Ms Black’s application to withdraw her claims against the landlord.
I will now turn to the landlord's claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Ms Blake did not comply with the Tribunal Order and left a Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop on the premises when she finally vacated on or about 25 July 2023, instead of vacating on 21 July 2023 at 5 pm as ordered. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Blake did not contest the amount claimed.

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.
Ms Blake did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord wanted to dispose of the Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop left on the property by Ms. Blake. They sought a Tribunal Order under section 62B(1) RTA to dispose of these items. However, my view is that these two items are rubbish, and it is Ms. Blake's responsibility to remove them from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
After reviewing the photographic evidence, numerous items Ms. Blake left behind can be classified as rubbish and should have been removed by Ms. Blake at the end of the tenancy. These items include a broken tyre, an unwanted chair, a basketball stand left on the ground, mattresses, the Yokohama BBQ, and a basketball hoop attached to the upper edge of the garage, among many others.
The Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop require proper disposal. The landlord has estimated a cost of $100 for their disposal, although no invoice has been submitted. I approve this claim based on the following reasons: a. The Council cannot collect the Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop if they are left on the roadside. The landlord must remove them from the premises before the property is rented. b. It was Ms Blake's responsibility to remove these two items and many other items at the end of the tenancy. c. The landlord had expected Ms. Blake to arrange for the removal of the items from the property, but she failed to do so. In my view, a tipping cost of $100, which includes GST, travel, and labour, is a reasonable and generous estimate of the cost required.
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. Repair sliding door bedroom 3 for $300; b. Repair Light hanging from lounge ceiling for $140; c. Paint wall – cost of paint for $412; d. Repair damaged bedroom wall for $140; e. Repair damaged carpet (excess) for $500; f. Replace the cracked ceramic vanity top for $950. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $522.50; g. Replace backdoor for $549, paint for $113, and fitting for $46.53. Total is $709.39. After applying a 45% adjustment to the back door for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $461.48; h. Replace the damaged back kitchen bench for $1,011.66. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $556.41; i. Replace kitchen bench backboard (chewed by the dog) for $83.38. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $45.86; j. Replace bathroom ceiling mildew damage for $250.14. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $137.58; k. Replace 2 doors under the house ($709.39 each) for $1,418.78. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $780.33.
The landlord submitted a bundle of documents, including photographic evidence of the damages. The landlord took me through the claims with the supporting photo evidence. Some of the damages, such as damage to the carpet, the kitchen top, and the doors, could properly be described as intentional.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, I am not satisfied the broken toilet seat was not due to fair wear and tear. I decline to order Ms Blake to pay to replace the toilet set.
I acknowledge the landlord has tried to repair the damages where possible. I must, however, take into account the age of the house, betterment and depreciation. The appropriate depreciation varies for the items replaced. Looking at the items the landlord had to replace, my view is that they have a lifespan between 8 and 10 years. They were not new when Ms Blake took possession of the house.
Accordingly, I apply 45% depreciation for items that were replaced. I have not disturbed the cost required to repair the items, paint cost or insurance excess.
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. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I have concluded that the Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop left on the premises are rubbish. If I am mistaken, my view is that both items can still be disposed of since the landlord and tenant are unable to agree on a timeframe for the tenant to collect them.
It is not practicable for the landlord to return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2), and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did Ms Blake fail to quit the premises on 21 July 2023?

On 13 July 2023, the Tribunal granted the landlord possession of the premises at 5 pm on 21 July 21 2023.
The landlord said Ms Blake failed to comply with the Tribunal Order and section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Ms Blake occupied the premisses four days after 21 July 2023. Ms Blake said she did not vacate the premises on 21 July 2023 because she had not finished moving out.
It is unclear on which date Ms. Blake vacated the premises. A Yokohama BBQ and a basketball hoop were still present at the premises in the December 2023 hearing and today.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find Ms Blake committed an unlawful act for breaching section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA and not complying with the Tribunal Order.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I acknowledge that Ms. Blake may have had personal issues that made it difficult to vacate the premises by 5 p.m. on 21 July 2023. However, it is important to note that her landlord sought a Tribunal Order on 21 July 2023 because Ms. Blake had failed to keep up with her rent payments since May 2023.
Given her financial and emotional circumstances, I understand that moving is not easy, especially for Ms. Blake.
Accordingly, I consider $250 in exemplary damages against Ms. Blake appropriate. In determining this amount, I have taken into account her financial situation and the fact that she moved out four days after July 21, 2023 leaving two unwanted items (a Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop) on the premises. Filing fee
Because Leeann Dawn Bellam and Greg Bellam have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4637803 — net $4,992.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$550.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$75.00	Water rates
Repairs: Sliding door bedroom 3	$300.00	Repairs: Sliding door bedroom 3
Repairs: Light hanging from lounge ceiling	$140.00	Repairs: Light hanging from lounge ceiling
Paint walls - paint cost	$412.00	Paint walls - paint cost
Repairs: Damaged bedroom wall	$140.00	Repairs: Damaged bedroom wall
Repairs: carpet (excess	$500.00	Repairs: carpet (excess
Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic vanity	$522.50	Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic vanity
Replace furnishings: Back door	$301.95	Replace furnishings: Back door
Back door paint	$113.86	Back door paint
Fitting cost for the back door	$46.53	Fitting cost for the back door
Replace furnishings: Back kitchen bench top	$556.41	Replace furnishings: Back kitchen bench top
Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench back board	$45.86	Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench back board
Replace furnishings: Bathroom ceiling (mildew damage	$137.58	Replace furnishings: Bathroom ceiling (mildew damage
Replace furnishings: 2 doors under the house	$780.33	Replace furnishings: 2 doors under the house
Rubbish removal: Yokohama BBQ and Basketball hoop	$100.00	Rubbish removal: Yokohama BBQ and Basketball hoop
Exemplary damage - failure to quite the premises	$250.00	Exemplary damage - failure to quite the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,992.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,992.46

Order

Emily May Blake must pay Leeann Dawn Bellam and Greg Bellam $4,992.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods (a Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop) left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$550.00 Water rates$75.00 Repairs: Sliding door bedroom 3$300.00 Repairs: Light hanging from lounge ceiling$140.00 Paint walls - paint cost$412.00 Repairs: Damaged bedroom wall$140.00 Repairs: carpet (excess)$500.00 Replace furnishings: cracked ceramic vanity$522.50 Replace furnishings: Back door$301.95 Back door paint$113.86 Fitting cost for the back door$46.53 Replace furnishings: Back kitchen bench top$556.41 Replace furnishings: Kitchen bench back board$45.86 Replace furnishings: Bathroom ceiling (mildew damage)$137.58 Replace furnishings: 2 doors under the house$780.33 Rubbish removal: Yokohama BBQ and Basketball hoop$100.00 Exemplary damage - failure to quite the premises$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,992.46 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,992.46

Reasons

The hearing was held on 19 March 2024. Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr and Mrs Bellam, the landlord, attended the hearing.
Ms Blake, the tenant, attended the hearing. Introduction
On December 20th, 2023, I presided over a hearing regarding a case brought by a landlord against Ms. Blake. After hearing both sides of the case, I adjourned the hearing to give Ms. Blake time to organise her case and present her evidence more effectively. I advised her to seek legal advice from the Community Law Centre. I advised her that she has the option of instructing a lawyer under section 93(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA"). This is because the total amount of claims against the landlord is $33,620.17, and a lawyer can help to balance the significant disparity between the parties. The landlord presented a logical argument based on evidence, while Ms Blake struggled with focus.
At today’s hearing, it became clear that Ms. Blake did not instruct a lawyer. She informed me that she was unable to find legal representation despite her efforts. Ms. Blake explained that she is a full-time mother of three boys and has limited time, finances, and experience due to living in emergency housing. She also mentioned that her health is a significant factor that affects her ability to handle the situation.
While the Community Law Centre assisted Ms. Blake with documents, I refused to accept further evidence from her during the hearing because she had ample opportunity from 21 December 2023 to the first week of March 2024 to comply with the Tribunal Order's filing deadline but did not. Ms. Blake explained that her laptop was broken and that she had only recently received it back. However, I did not accept this explanation, as Ms. Blake had enough time to file her further documents or evidence. Ms Blake sought leave to withdraw her claims against the landlord
During the hearing, I first reconfirmed the amount of money that the landlord claimed against Ms Blake and the claims for storage costs for the old Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop that remained on the premises.
After the landlord reconfirmed the amount of their claims, Ms Blake did not respond to the submissions the landlord made. Instead, she listed ten further claims against the landlord. These were as follows: a. The landlord made an unlawful entry. b. The landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. c. The landlord’s unjustified Tribunal application. d. The landlord misled the court. e. The landlord committed harassment. f. The landlord knowingly committed unlawful acts. g. The landlord did not take responsibility and shifted the responsibility to the tenant. h. Disposal of goods. i. Private and confidential information. j. Bullying and intimidation generally.
I say “further claims” because, in her application, Ms Blake alleged that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, sought compensation for living in leaking premises, and sought exemplary damages under various headings, including that the landlord issued a retaliatory notice, made her enter into a transaction that was prohibited by law, and breached her quiet enjoyment.
While Ms Blake made submissions on the allegations that the landlord unlawfully entered and breached her quiet enjoyment, some of the information she submitted was irrelevant because it did not pertain to the tenancy itself. For instance, her family circumstances and difficulty vacating the premises were irrelevant to the issues of unlawful entry or breach of quiet enjoyment.
I asked Ms Blake to point me to the evidence and/or information about how the landlord made unlawful entry and how the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. However, Ms Blake mentioned things like broken devices and private and confidential information, which were not directly relevant to unlawful entry or breach of quiet enjoyment. Ms Blake, however, said they were related issues.
Ms Blake became emotional and requested a 5-minute break. I then adjourned the hearing for 5 minutes to give her time to regroup. However, when the hearing resumed, Ms Blake was nowhere to be found. I asked the court registrar to assist me in locating her. Finally, when Ms Blake returned to the hearing room, she said she wanted to withdraw her claims as she realised she did not have sufficient evidence to support her claims, especially regarding unlawful entry and quiet enjoyment.
I asked Ms Blake if she wanted to withdraw her claims. She confirmed that she had. It is her decision whether she decides to file a new application.
I then granted Ms Black’s application to withdraw her claims against the landlord.
I will now turn to the landlord's claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Ms Blake did not comply with the Tribunal Order and left a Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop on the premises when she finally vacated on or about 25 July 2023, instead of vacating on 21 July 2023 at 5 pm as ordered. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Blake did not contest the amount claimed.

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.
Ms Blake did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord wanted to dispose of the Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop left on the property by Ms. Blake. They sought a Tribunal Order under section 62B(1) RTA to dispose of these items. However, my view is that these two items are rubbish, and it is Ms. Blake's responsibility to remove them from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
After reviewing the photographic evidence, numerous items Ms. Blake left behind can be classified as rubbish and should have been removed by Ms. Blake at the end of the tenancy. These items include a broken tyre, an unwanted chair, a basketball stand left on the ground, mattresses, the Yokohama BBQ, and a basketball hoop attached to the upper edge of the garage, among many others.
The Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop require proper disposal. The landlord has estimated a cost of $100 for their disposal, although no invoice has been submitted. I approve this claim based on the following reasons: a. The Council cannot collect the Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop if they are left on the roadside. The landlord must remove them from the premises before the property is rented. b. It was Ms Blake's responsibility to remove these two items and many other items at the end of the tenancy. c. The landlord had expected Ms. Blake to arrange for the removal of the items from the property, but she failed to do so. In my view, a tipping cost of $100, which includes GST, travel, and labour, is a reasonable and generous estimate of the cost required.
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. Repair sliding door bedroom 3 for $300; b. Repair Light hanging from lounge ceiling for $140; c. Paint wall – cost of paint for $412; d. Repair damaged bedroom wall for $140; e. Repair damaged carpet (excess) for $500; f. Replace the cracked ceramic vanity top for $950. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $522.50; g. Replace backdoor for $549, paint for $113, and fitting for $46.53. Total is $709.39. After applying a 45% adjustment to the back door for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $461.48; h. Replace the damaged back kitchen bench for $1,011.66. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $556.41; i. Replace kitchen bench backboard (chewed by the dog) for $83.38. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $45.86; j. Replace bathroom ceiling mildew damage for $250.14. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $137.58; k. Replace 2 doors under the house ($709.39 each) for $1,418.78. After applying a 45% adjustment for both betterment and depreciation, the final amount comes to $780.33.
The landlord submitted a bundle of documents, including photographic evidence of the damages. The landlord took me through the claims with the supporting photo evidence. Some of the damages, such as damage to the carpet, the kitchen top, and the doors, could properly be described as intentional.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, I am not satisfied the broken toilet seat was not due to fair wear and tear. I decline to order Ms Blake to pay to replace the toilet set.
I acknowledge the landlord has tried to repair the damages where possible. I must, however, take into account the age of the house, betterment and depreciation. The appropriate depreciation varies for the items replaced. Looking at the items the landlord had to replace, my view is that they have a lifespan between 8 and 10 years. They were not new when Ms Blake took possession of the house.
Accordingly, I apply 45% depreciation for items that were replaced. I have not disturbed the cost required to repair the items, paint cost or insurance excess.
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. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I have concluded that the Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop left on the premises are rubbish. If I am mistaken, my view is that both items can still be disposed of since the landlord and tenant are unable to agree on a timeframe for the tenant to collect them.
It is not practicable for the landlord to return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2), and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did Ms Blake fail to quit the premises on 21 July 2023?

On 13 July 2023, the Tribunal granted the landlord possession of the premises at 5 pm on 21 July 21 2023.
The landlord said Ms Blake failed to comply with the Tribunal Order and section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Ms Blake occupied the premisses four days after 21 July 2023. Ms Blake said she did not vacate the premises on 21 July 2023 because she had not finished moving out.
It is unclear on which date Ms. Blake vacated the premises. A Yokohama BBQ and a basketball hoop were still present at the premises in the December 2023 hearing and today.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find Ms Blake committed an unlawful act for breaching section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA and not complying with the Tribunal Order.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I acknowledge that Ms. Blake may have had personal issues that made it difficult to vacate the premises by 5 p.m. on 21 July 2023. However, it is important to note that her landlord sought a Tribunal Order on 21 July 2023 because Ms. Blake had failed to keep up with her rent payments since May 2023.
Given her financial and emotional circumstances, I understand that moving is not easy, especially for Ms. Blake.
Accordingly, I consider $250 in exemplary damages against Ms. Blake appropriate. In determining this amount, I have taken into account her financial situation and the fact that she moved out four days after July 21, 2023 leaving two unwanted items (a Yokohama BBQ and basketball hoop) on the premises. Filing fee
Because Leeann Dawn Bellam and Greg Bellam have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637803 — Property damage at 52A Bay Street, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637803 — Property damage at 52A Bay Street, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did Ms Blake fail to quit the premises on 21 July 2023?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did Ms Blake fail to quit the premises on 21 July 2023?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions